16.09.2020

Salisbury Street Victory

On 10 September 2020, Osborne J delivered the long-awaited judgment in Body Corporate 335089 v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd and Body Corporate 341154 v Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd.[1]  The judgment was a decisive victory for Vero represented by Christine Meechan QC and Hesketh Henry.

The matter concerned two substantially similar multi-unit complexes (insured by Vero) at 152 and 160 Salisbury Street, both of which suffered damage as a result of the Canterbury Earthquake sequence (CES).  The two cases were heard together in a single six week hearing between May and July 2019, which was the first fully electronic casebook trial to take place in the Christchurch High Court.

Each plaintiff sought declarations from the Court as to the earthquake damage to its property and the scope of work required to repair the damage (in each case seeking a rebuild of the four buildings at its property). 

The hearing was truly a battle of the experts – comprising almost in its entirety complex expert evidence from (among others) geotechnical, structural and civil engineers, many of whom submitted multiple briefs of evidence including during the course of the hearing itself.  Ultimately, in a detailed 150 page judgment, Osborne J found that the earthquake damage to the buildings was less extensive than contended by the plaintiffs and could be repaired by the remedial work proposed by Vero’s experts.

Although of course unique to the facts before it, the judgment addresses a number of technical issues that are of broader interest to insurers and the construction sector, including (among other things):

  • The extent to which cracking in concrete slab and panels is indicative of structural damage;
  • The efficacy of epoxy to repair cracks;
  • Establishing damage to piled foundations;
  • Use of finite element analysis as a predictive tool in conjunction with inspections; and
  • Application of the doctrine of natural servitude in respect of secondary flowpaths.

From an insurance perspective, the judgment provides a lucidly reasoned exposition of how a “when new” policy standard is to be applied to a technically complex set of evidential facts. 

Hesketh Henry lawyers acting on this matter were:  Helen Macfarlane, Stephanie Corban, Rob McStay and Alice Eager.

[1] [2020] NZHC 2353

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

UK Court of Appeal rules that that courts can order parties to engage in ADR: Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
The England and Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA) has held that in certain circumstances, the courts can order parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or stay proceedings to allow the par...
24.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Health and Safety Tiles
Updated Guidance: IOD and WorkSafe release ‘Health and Safety Governance – A Good Practice Guide’
While we wait with bated breath for the outcome in the prosecution of former Ports of Auckland CEO, Tony Gibson, officers’ duties are very much at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Section 44 of t...
23.07.2024 Posted in Employment & Health & Safety
Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.