Steel v Spence Consultants Limited

[2016] NZHC 2723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-000672 [2016] NZHC 2723

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 (1) OF GENDALL J

STEEL v SPENCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2723 [14 November 2016]

[1]      First of all, so far as the question  you have raised, Mr Matthews, as to Mr Spence’s personal liability here, you have had an answer from Mr Cooper.  That remains a matter which will unfold as this hearing progresses.

[2]      Secondly, so far as the appropriateness and admissibility of documents in the agreed bundle are concerned, first, the documents at pages 368 and 369 have been agreed by Mr Cooper to be deleted and I have made a deletion of those documents.

[3]      Next,  the  documents  at  pages  419  and  420,  this  is  the  estimate  which Ms Steel received from P4 Projects.   I note that Ms Steel, who is the first-named plaintiff, is giving evidence in this matter.   This is an estimate which has been received by Ms Steel.  I accept the arguments from Mr Matthews that, given no one from P4 Projects is to be called to give evidence as to the technical nature and authenticity of the calculations contained in this estimate I am ruling at this point that this estimate, pages 419 and 420, are also to be deleted from the agreed bundle. What may transpire, however, when Ms Steel provides her evidence in this matter is something I will address at the time the evidence is given in terms of any admissibility questions raised at that point.

[4]      The  next  documents  are  at  375  and  376  of  the  agreed  bundle.    But  as

Mr Cooper before me has said, those documents (which relate to an appraisal for

36A Brookside Terrace completed by the real estate agent Julia Ashmore Smith) are now superseded by a one page document, which he has handed up to me.  This is somewhat different from aspects of those earlier pages.   Ms Ashmore Smith, as I understand  it,  is  not  being called  as  a witness  here.    Mr Matthews  has  rightly indicated that this document is simply hearsay at this point and, certainly insofar as it purports to provide an expert opinion relating to information contained in the document, it is inadmissible.   So that document, which is now at page 375 of the agreed bundle, is to be deleted from the agreed bundle.

[5]      The last document is at page 373 of the agreed bundle.  This is a letter from

Build Tech Restorations Limited addressed to Ms Emma Steel dated 19 September

2014.  Again, Mr Matthews for the defendant objects to this letter being included in the bundle on the basis that it is hearsay, given that Mr Boddington, the construction

manager of Build Tech Restorations Limited and author of the letter, is not to give evidence in this matter.  Again it is a little difficult at this early point in this hearing to ascertain from the body of the letter, aspects which might be at issue here and which this letter addresses. Again, it is a letter addressed to Ms Emma Steel.  She is, as I have said earlier, the first-named plaintiff and a party who is to give evidence in this matter.  My ruling at this point is that the document is inadmissible.  It is hearsay in this matter.  What may transpire when Ms Emma Steel gives her evidence in this matter on any issues which this letter might purport to address I will deal with at that point in time.

[6]      Those are my rulings with respect to those issues.   I have deleted from the bundle therefore the particular pages that I have mentioned in the decision I have just given.

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

Gendall J

Solicitors:

Cavell Leitch, Christchurch

White Fox & Jones, Christchurch