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

Force Majeure – Not A Get Out Of Jail Free Card
Woolworths Group Ltd v Twentieth Super Pace Nominees Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 344
17.06.2022 Posted in Trade and Transport
Payment Claims: Incorrect Due Date From Delayed Delivery
Nicholls Group Projects Ltd v Plan Design Build Homes Ltd
20.05.2022 Posted in Construction
Employment Court Deems Gloriavale Residents Employees
The definition of “employee” in the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) can at times be tricky to navigate; recent cases involving builders, couriers, and uber drivers can attest to the issues tha...
18.05.2022 Posted in Employment
New proposals on modern slavery place higher responsibilities on NZ organisations
Over recent years, modern slavery has become a more prominent issue in New Zealand.
13.05.2022 Posted in Business Advice
Insurance Contracts Bill – submissions on exposure draft closing soon
As we reported in late February, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is seeking submissions on the exposure draft Insurance Contracts Bill.  Submissions close on 4 May 2022. MB...
20.04.2022 Posted in Insurance
Matariki and Fair Pay Agreements
Matariki Te Pire mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki (Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Bill) received Royal Assent yesterday, and the new Act comes into force today – 12 April 20...
12.04.2022 Posted in Employment
A Landmark Change? – Proposed reform of the occupational regulation of engineers
Engineers engage in building work that is critical to public safety. Despite this, few restrictions are placed on who can carry out and supervise complex and specialised projects that require high levels of professional judgement, skill and technical competence.
07.04.2022 Posted in Construction
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->