Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Ross

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 105/2019
[2019] NZSC 140

BETWEEN	SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED Applicant
AND	BRENDAN MILES ROSS AND COLLEEN ANNE ROSS Respondents

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	T C Weston QC and K M Paterson for Applicant P G Skelton QC, K M Quinn and C B Pearce for Respondents
Judgment:	9 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted (Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2019] NZCA 431).

BThe approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The appeal will raise questions about the principles applicable to deciding whether representative claims proceed on an opt in or opt out basis. We consider that we may be assisted by submissions from the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association on those principles. Accordingly, we invite the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association to intervene if they wish to do so.

We direct the Registrar to bring the appeal to the attention of both organisations and to provide them with a copy of this judgment.

Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay, Christchurch for Applicant
GCA Lawyers, Christchurch for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal in a case involving the interpretation of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (NZ) concerning the opt-in or opt-out nature of representative claims. The case revolved around the interpretation of the statute and the procedural requirements for such claims. The Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprising Glazebrook, O’Regan, and Ellen France JJ, granted the application for leave to appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal correctly allowed the appeal. The case involved the interpretation of statutory provisions governing representative claims under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (NZ), specifically focusing on whether such claims should proceed on an opt-in or opt-out basis. This decision had significant implications for the procedural framework governing claims in New Zealand, particularly in the context of mass torts or class actions.

The Supreme Court determined that the appeal raised critical questions about the principles applicable to deciding whether representative claims proceed on an opt-in or opt-out basis. To gain a broader perspective on these principles, the court invited the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association to intervene in the appeal if they wished to do so. The court directed the Registrar to notify these organizations of the appeal and to provide them with a copy of the judgment. The court's decision to grant leave to appeal and invite submissions from these professional bodies indicated a recognition of the broader legal implications of the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established