Work v IAG NZ Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 90/2025
[2025] NZSC 138

BETWEEN	PETER ALLAN WORK AND ROBYN MARGARET WORK Applicants
AND	IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	G J Jones and J Heatlie for Applicants C M Stevens, B R D Cuff and K E Weekly for Respondent
Judgment:	15 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
BThe application for leave to file submissions in reply on the above application is dismissed.
CCosts are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

According to the earlier direction in this proceeding, the respondent has two weeks from the date of this judgment to file its submissions in opposition to leave. The Court will then decide the leave application on the papers. We will provide reasons for dismissing the applicants’ interlocutory applications in that judgment.

Solicitors:
Court One, Auckland for Applicants
Wotton Kearney, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Peter Allan Work and Robyn Margaret Work, sought leave to adduce further evidence and subsequently to file submissions in reply in a case against IAG New Zealand Limited. The dispute arose from a matter related to insurance claims and was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicants should be granted permission to present additional evidence and file further submissions in response to the respondent’s opposition to their initial application.

The court considered the applicants' request for leave to adduce further evidence and to file reply submissions within the framework of judicial discretion and the principles of procedural fairness. The applicants argued that the new evidence was crucial for their case, but the court found that the evidence was not of a kind that could not have been reasonably adduced earlier and did not significantly impact the outcome of the case. Additionally, the court determined that the applicants' submissions in reply were not necessary as the respondent's opposition to the initial application was adequately addressed on the papers.

In dismissing both applications, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and timelines, highlighting that the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify departing from the established procedure. The court reserved the matter of costs for a later determination. The Supreme Court's decision underscored the need for applicants to carefully consider the timing and relevance of additional evidence and submissions to avoid unnecessary delays and costs in litigation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established