Steel v Spence Consultants Limited

[2016] NZHC 2726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-000672 [2016] NZHC 2726

BETWEEN

EMMA JOY STEEL AND SARAH

NANCY OTT (AS TRUSTEES OF THE NINFIELD TRUST)

Plaintiffs

AND

SPENCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED First Defendant

GARY BRENT SPENCE Second Defendant

Hearing:	14 November 2016
Appearances:	G A Cooper and S Cowan for Plaintiffs H C Matthews and K Graham for Defendants
Ruling:	14 November 2016

ORAL RULING (3) OF GENDALL J

[1]      This decision relates to a query as to admissibility of a statement in the brief of evidence of Simon O’Brien, a chartered building surveyor who is about to give evidence  in  this  proceeding  today,  14  November  2016.      At  para  [46]  of Mr O’Brien’s brief of evidence he states:

I have prepared a scope of works in my report.  I have been provided with an estimate for the re-cladding of the house prepared by P4 Projects dated

8 December 2014 obtained by Ms Steel at ABD419.   In view of typical tender returns reviewed in my office by my quantity surveying team I do not

see the quantum to be out of the ordinary in the current market.

[2]      Mr Matthews, counsel for the defendants, objects to the entire paragraph [46] of Mr Simon O’Brien’s brief of evidence with the exclusion of the first sentence “I have prepared a scope of works in my report”.    In earlier admissibility rulings I

made in this matter I ruled that the estimate for re-cladding of the house prepared by

STEEL v SPENCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2726 [14 November 2016]

P4 Projects dated 8 December 2014 which was outlined at ABD419 of the common bundle of documents was not to be admitted and was to be deleted from the bundle.

[3]      That said, and given that no party from P4 Projects is providing evidence in this matter to obviate the concern that this statement is inadmissible hearsay, there can be no question here that the offending sentences in para [46] of Mr O’Brien’s evidence must be deleted.  It could be, however, that in the evidence Mr O’Brien is now to give before this Court, aspects regarding costings in this matter can be addressed to provide some clarity to the other evidence he is providing in this matter.

[4]      For all these reasons I rule that the second and third sentences of para [46] of Mr O’Brien’s brief of evidence in reply dated 8 November 2016 are inadmissible. They are to be deleted from his brief.

...................................................

Gendall J

Solicitors:

Cavell Leitch, Christchurch

White Fox & Jones, Christchurch