Wakefield v Network Waitaki Limited - [2024] NZHC 614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CIV-2023-476-009

[2024] NZHC 614

BETWEEN
GARRY WAKEFIELD and FIONA WAKEFIELD

First Plaintiffs

OTHER PLAINTIFFS
Second to One Hundred and First Plaintiffs (detailed in Schedule A)

AND

NETWORK WAITAKI LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: 27 February 2024

Appearances:

C M Stevens, B R D Cuff and C S M Henley for Plaintiffs

C T Walker KC, G N Gallaway and W J Hamilton for Defendant

Judgment:

21 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 March 2024 at 11.30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

WAKEFIELD v NETWORK WAITAKI LIMITED [2024] NZHC 614 [21 March 2024]

[1] The defendant owns and operates the electrical lines and associated infrastructure that provides power to the Lake Ōhau Village. On 4 October 2020, Lake Ōhau Village was devastated by fire. The plaintiffs allege the defendant is responsible for the fire and the resulting loss of their property.

[2] The plaintiffs’ original statement of claim was dated 2 June 2023; in response to which the defendant served a notice requiring further particulars on 3 July 2023. The plaintiffs provided a response to that request for particulars on 21 July 2023. The defendant was unsatisfied with the response and filed this application seeking both further particulars and initial disclosure.

[3] The defendant’s primary concern is that it is prejudiced because the plaintiffs’ pleading does not fairly inform it of the case it has to meet, limit the scope of the matters that may be put in evidence at trial, and enable it to know what witnesses to brief and call.

[4] The plaintiffs oppose the defendant’s application and have also now filed a first amended statement of claim. The plaintiffs say they have provided initial disclosure and any failings in this regard are immaterial. They also say the amended statement of claim provides the particulars required by the High Court Rules, and to the extent that it may not do so such particulars will be provided following discovery.

[5]The application broadly raises the following issues:

(a)whether the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim provides sufficient particulars of the plaintiffs’ claims as required by the High Court Rules in the respects identified by the defendant; and

(b)whether the plaintiffs have complied with their initial disclosure obligations and, if not, what orders should be made in response.

Context

[6] The claim is brought on behalf of 101 plaintiffs (comprising individuals, companies or trusts), all of whom suffered property damage in the fire.

[7] The defendant carries on business as an electricity distribution company. Its core business is the provision, operation and management of electricity lines and infrastructure, including to the Lake Ōhau village.

[8] The plaintiffs say the fire commenced between 2.10 am and 3.00 am on 4 October 2020, approximately 3 km north-west of Lake Ōhau Village. The fire had clearly established itself by 3.06 am when the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wakefield v Network Waitaki Limited 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: [2024] NZHC 614
Decision Date: 21 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wakefield v Network Waitaki Limited was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Timaru Registry. The plaintiffs, 101 individuals, companies, or trusts, seek damages for property loss caused by a fire that devastated Lake Ōhau Village on 4 October 2020. The defendant, Network Waitaki Limited, an electricity distribution company, denies responsibility and argues that the plaintiffs' claims are insufficiently particularised and that they have failed to comply with their initial disclosure obligations. The plaintiffs counter that they have provided the particulars required by the High Court Rules and that further particulars should await the outcome of discovery.

The court considered whether the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim provided sufficient particulars of their claims and whether they had complied with their initial disclosure obligations. It found that the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim did not provide sufficient particulars of the losses claimed by each plaintiff, and the court ordered the plaintiffs to provide further particulars within 40 working days. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient particulars of the molten material that ignited the fire and the location and time of the alleged merger of the two fires. However, the court did not order further particulars of the alleged breach of duty as the plaintiffs' pleading was sufficiently clear. The court held that the intituling of the plaintiffs did not comply with the rules, but found that the failure to provide the required details did not prejudice the defendant and was not material to the substantive issues. The court did not make any orders regarding the plaintiffs' initial disclosure but noted that any failure to comply with the Rules might be relevant to costs.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide further particulars of the losses, the composition of the molten material, and the location and time of the merger of the fires, as well as updated intituling. Costs were reserved but the parties were invited to file submissions if they wished to seek costs.

Orders