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

Plan fail results in health and safety conviction
Deliver the health and safety work you promise, or there may be legal consequences – as a health and safety consultancy recently learnt! Earlier this year, WorkSafe prosecuted Safe Business Solution...
25.10.2024 Posted in Employment & Health & Safety
Contract stock edit e
Rent reviews
As a tenant or landlord under a commercial lease, your business will be affected by rent reviews during the life of your lease.  Therefore, it is essential that you understand the most common types o...
24.10.2024 Posted in Property
Serious misconduct – how serious does the conduct have to be?
What is serious misconduct, and when and how can an employer bring an employee’s employment to an end on these grounds?
23.10.2024 Posted in Employment
iStock  Construction dpi
“More than an opinion”: criminal liability arising from PS4 producer statements under the Building Act 2004
In Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2022) from CRI-2021-463-55 ([2022] NZHC 556) [2024] NZCA 514 the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the following question: Was the Court correct to find...
15.10.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Close call on contribution: Beca decision confirms 10-year longstop does not bar contribution claims
In a 3-2 split decision, the Supreme Court in Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd v Wellington City Council [2024] NZSC 117 confirmed that contribution claims are not barred by the Building Act 2004...
11.10.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes & Insurance
Business man document
Addressing directors’ personal safety
The Companies Act 1993 (CA93) currently requires all company directors to make their residential addresses available as a matter of public record.  However, in recent times, incidents of stalking and...
Wielding the Secateurs: The High Court’s Pruning of Potentially Disruptive Decisions
Every now and then courts have to self-correct to prevent errant off-shoots of legal reasoning advancing into the law.  In the decision, IAG New Zealand Ltd v Degen [2024] NZHC 397, the High Court t...
19.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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