Offshore Holdings Limited v Western Pacific Insurance Limited (in liquidation) [2018] NZHC 1307 (6 June 2018)

Last Updated: 4 July 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2017-409-000884 [2018] NZHC 1307

BETWEEN	OFFSHORE HOLDINGS LIMITED First Plaintiff
AND	NZ CASHFLOW CONTROL LIMITED Second Plaintiff
AND	WESTERN PACIFIC INSURANCE LIMITED (in liquidation) Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	6 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] The plaintiffs owned properties at 8-12 Bedford Row, Christchurch and 128 Manchester Street, Christchurch. The properties were compulsorily acquired by the Crown in January 2014 utilising powers governed under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011. Offshore Holdings Ltd and NZ Cashflow Control Ltd have issued proceedings against the defendant seeking damages for the amounts which they say were due to them under their insurance policies as a result of damage suffered in the Canterbury earthquakes.

[2] Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), through its solicitors, Buddle Findlay, have sought access to information on the Court file for these proceedings in accordance with r 11 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. LINZ is responsible for assisting the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch

OFFSHORE HOLDINGS LTD & ANOR v NZ CASHFLOW CONTROL LTD [2018] NZHC 1307 [6 June 2018]

Regeneration in making a determination of the amount of compensation payable to the plaintiffs as a consequence of the compulsory acquisitions.

[3] LINZ seeks access to “any and all documents filed by either party” in the earthquake damage proceedings, including:

(a) the statement(s) of claim;

(b) the statement(s) of defence;

(c) any memoranda filed by either party relating to case management steps or proposing a timetable toward a hearing;

(d) any evidence filed on behalf of either party; and

(e) any judgment(s), order(s), or minute(s) of the Court, including any record of the reasons given by a Judge (in accordance with rule 9 of the Rules).

[4] LINZ seeks access to the documents “for the purposes of understanding the extent of the damage caused to the buildings by the Canterbury earthquakes that were on the properties”. It says:

The extent of the damage, whether or not the buildings were economically repairable and if so, the estimated cost to repair will all be directly relevant to assessing the amount of compensation that will be payable by the Crown to the plaintiffs.

[5] The defendant has no objection to LINZ having access to the documents it seeks.

[6] The plaintiffs do object, for reasons set out in a letter to the High Court from their solicitors dated 1 June 2018. Access is objected to on the grounds:

(a) LINZ has not provided particulars of the documents it is seeking, as required by r 11(2)(b) of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. In essence, counsel argues this is a request for access to every document that is filed.
(b) The request is premature given the plaintiffs have not yet submitted to LINZ all documents they intend to rely on in pursuing their claims for compensation. The claims for compensation have not been finally formulated or quantified and are matters on which the plaintiffs are still seeking expert advice.

(c) In 2013, the Crown made an offer which was based on the properties having land value only. The plaintiffs submit this was inconsistent with LINZ seeking access to the documents to understand the extent of the damage caused to the buildings by the Canterbury earthquakes.

[7] I note that, in the plaintiffs’ objection, there is no disagreement with the assertion for LINZ that directly relevant to assessing the amount of compensation that will be payable by the Crown to the plaintiffs will be:

(a) the extent of the damage caused to the buildings by the Canterbury earthquakes;

(b) whether or not the buildings were economically repairable; and

(c) if so, the estimated cost to repair.

[8] LINZ thus has a proper interest in finding out what is at issue in the current proceedings and what each party is asserting as to the damage done to the properties in the Canterbury earthquakes. Although LINZ is effectively seeking access to all documents on the Court file, the documents LINZ seeks are sufficiently particularised, pursuant to r 11(2)(b).

[9] I do not accept that the request for access is premature. LINZ is wanting access to documents to see how the plaintiffs are formulating their claim against the defendant. That is likely to be material to the interest which LINZ, quite properly, has in the proceedings. That will remain material if and when the plaintiffs’ claims for compensation have been finally formulated and if and when the plaintiffs’ claims in these proceedings has been determined by a judgment of this Court.
[10] If the Crown did make an offer in 2013 based on the properties having land value only, that would not be inconsistent with the purpose for which LINZ now says it should have access to the documents. The current proceedings could provide relevant information as to whether the premise for the Crown’s 2013 offer was correct.

[11] Access to the documents is granted on condition that LINZ is to use the documents only to assist it in understanding the following:

(a) the extent of damage caused to the buildings by the Canterbury earthquakes;

(b) the purpose of determining whether the buildings were economically repairable; and

(c) if need be, for establishing what the estimated cost to repair would be for the purpose of the amount of compensation payable by the Crown to the plaintiffs.

[12] I accordingly grant LINZ’s request for access to the following documents:

(a) copy of statement of claim dated 31 October 2017;

(b) copy of statement of defence dated 5 December 2017;

(c) joint memorandum of counsel for first case management conference dated 5 March 2018;

(d) minute of Gendall J dated 9 March 2018;

(e) joint memorandum of counsel for case management conference dated 7 May 2018; and

(f) minute of Whata J dated 8 May 2018.

Solicitors:

White Fox & Jones, Christchurch Buddle Findlay, Christchurch Anderson Lloyd, Christchurch.