Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 71 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2018-409-000361

[2021] NZHC 2453

BETWEEN

BRENDAN MILES ROSS and COLLEEN ANNE ROSS

Plaintiffs

AND

SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: 13 April 2021

Appearances:

P G Skelton QC, K M Quinn and C B Pearce for Plaintiffs

T C Weston QC, K M Paterson and E D Peers for Defendant S M Grieve and G D R Shand for B & L Vickers and others (Intervening)

Judgment:

20 September 2021


JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

(Defendant’s communications application)


This judgment was delivered by me on 20 September 2021 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

ROSS v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2453 [20 September 2021]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction  [1]

Previous findings in relation to defendant’s communications  [3] The substantive litigation and interlocutory applications and appeals  [8] Directions now sought by Southern Response  [14]

The Rosses’ opposition  [18]

Matters previously determined  [19]

Communications during the opt out period  [22] Content of Southern Response’s communications — the standard to be observed  [25] Content of Southern Response’s communications — discussion  [31] Appendices 1–5  [31]

Appendix 1: Webpage content  [34]

CP1 “Background to the Package”  [36]

CP2  “The Pre-October 2014 Payment Package is based on the Dodds case”  [38] CP3 “The Pre-October 2014 Payment Package is based on the Dodds case”  [39] CP4 “Relationship between pre-October 2014 Payment Package and the

Ross class action”  [44]

CP5 “Your options if you cash-settled with Southern Response prior to

1 October 2014”  [54]

CP6 “Recommendation to seek independent legal advice”  [57]

CP7 “What is the Independent Oversight Committee (IOC)?”  [61] CP8 “EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE DODDS CASE: Background”  [62] CP9 “EXPLANATION ABOUT THE DODDS CASE: Dodds Court Decision”  [64] CP10 “INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE”  [69]

Appendix 2: Registration form  [70]

CP11 First draft email  [71]

CP12 Second draft email  [74]

Appendix 3: Marketing material  [75]

Appendix 4: Direct communication with customers (Phase 2 or where a

customer requests written information)  [76]

CP13 “Relationship between Pre-October 2014 Payment Package and the

Ross Class Action”  [76]

CP13 “Your options if you cash-settled with Southern Response prior to

1 October 2014”  [77]

CP15 “Recommendation to seek independent legal advice”  [78]

Appendix 5: Letterbox drop to Canterbury households (Phase 3 — if required)  [80]

CP16 “Am I eligible for a payment?”  [80]

Content of Southern Response’s communications — approved forms  [82]

Timing of Southern Response’s communications  [84]

Leave reserved  [91]

Orders  [92]

Communications  [92]

Initial Communications  [92]

Further Communications  [92]

Liberty to negotiate and/or settle claims  [92]

Timing  [92]

Leave reserved  [92]

Costs and disbursements  [92]

Introduction

[1]                 In this proceeding Brendan and Colleen Ross1 bring (by leave under r 4.24 High Court Rules 2016) a representative claim against Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd (Southern Response).2

[2]                 An issue arose as to communications which Southern Response proposed to initiate with individual potential members of the class represented by the Rosses. I heard Southern Response’s…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NZHC 2453
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiffs, Brendan Miles Ross and Colleen Anne Ross, brought a representative claim against Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited, a Crown-owned company that deals with claims by former AMI Insurance Ltd customers for damage resulting from the Canterbury earthquakes. The plaintiffs alleged that Southern Response provided them with incomplete information about the cost of remedying earthquake damage to their home, leading them to settle on a less favourable basis. Southern Response applied for directions to communicate directly with individual potential class members to propose a settlement package. The court denied the application, finding that the court's supervisory powers in relation to representative proceedings applied to communications between the defendant and class members. The court also found that Southern Response's communications needed to be independently scrutinised to avoid potential confusion or misunderstanding. The court approved Southern Response's proposed communications subject to amendments, ensuring they were not misleading, coercive or similarly unacceptable, and balanced with the information provided in the class members notice. The court also directed that Southern Response's Initial Communications be made within a specific timeframe, and that Southern Response's Further Communications may take place at any time after a specified date. Leave was reserved to Southern Response to apply at short notice to alter, amend or add to the approved communications as required by changing circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.