Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance Limited

Prattley Enterprises Limited, a plaintiff, brought an action against Vero Insurance Limited, the defendant, in the High Court of New Zealand. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain expert evidence given by George Wilton Keys, an expert witness on depreciation in the assessment of the indemnity value of the plaintiff’s building. Vero Insurance challenged the admissibility of specific passages of Mr Keys' evidence, which referenced the approach to depreciation adopted in another proceeding, Morrison and Cross v Vero Insurance Limited. The court was required to determine whether the challenged evidence was relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act 2006.

The court examined the relevance of the evidence in question, considering whether it pertained to the specific issues in the current case. The plaintiff argued that the evidence was relevant as it demonstrated the industry’s approach to depreciation, supporting Mr Keys’ expert opinion. Vero Insurance contended that the evidence was irrelevant because it related to a different case with different facts. The court concluded that while the general reasoning applied in the Morrison case might be relevant, the specific evidence in question was not. The court found that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the risk of unfairness and unnecessary prolongation of the proceeding.

In its ruling, the court found the challenged passages and the documents they referenced to be inadmissible. The court held that the evidence was either irrelevant or would cause undue expense and delay if tested for its relevance. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence did not satisfy the requirements of the Evidence Act and was potentially prejudicial to the defendant. The court directed that the specified passages and documents could not be read in evidence at trial.

The final orders of the court were that specific paragraphs of Mr Keys’ evidence and the documents referenced in those paragraphs were inadmissible and could not be used in the trial. The plaintiff was not permitted to rely on this evidence to support their case regarding the appropriate depreciation method for the building in question.