Work v IAG New Zealand Limited

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicants, Peter Allan Work and Robyn Margaret Work, sought leave to appeal against several interlocutory decisions made by the High Court in their insurance claim against IAG New Zealand Limited. The applicants argued that the High Court had erred in its decisions, which included declining to order IAG to pay wasted costs and declining to admit certain will-say statements of expert witnesses in evidence at trial. The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the applicants were entitled to appeal the interlocutory decisions of the High Court and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed. The Court of Appeal found that the applications for leave to appeal were ill-advised, as the questions regarding the use of the will-say statements and the award of wasted costs were ultimately to be decided by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal declined the applications for leave to appeal and ordered that IAG was entitled to one set of costs for a standard application on a band B basis, with disbursements for both applications. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the trial judge would need to hear oral evidence about the circumstances of the expert witnesses' investigations before deciding whether to admit the will-say statements in evidence.