RITCHIE V EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2017] NZHC 1242

RITCHIE V EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2017] NZHC 1242

The Court dismissed EQC's strike-out and particulars applications because the plaintiffs had established genuine doubt under r 4.3(4) High Court Rules, Lumley's pleadings and correspondence justified the joinder, the pleading as amended and the further particulars filed adequately informed defendants of the case to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 1242
Parties
Plaintiffs: James Matthew Ritchie & Sandra Jane Bushnell; First Defendant: Earthquake Commission; Second Defendant: Lumley General (NZ) Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Insurance/earthquake / Interlocutory (strike Out and Particulars Applications)
Outcome
First defendant's interlocutory applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Joinder, Uncertainty Rule R 4.3(4) High Court Rules, Strike Out, Particulars, Declaratory Relief, Costs Between Multiple Defendants, Apportionment of Loss
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Property Damage/contract Joinder Uncertainty Rule R 4.3(4) High Court Rules Strike Out Particulars +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Matthew Ritchie & Sandra Jane Bushnell

Plaintiffs

Earthquake Commission

First Defendant

Lumley General (NZ) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Insurance/earthquake / Interlocutory (strike Out and Particulars Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether r 4.3(4) High Court Rules (uncertainty rule) permitted joinder of EQC where plaintiffs were uncertain which defendant was liable
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim failed to plead material facts against EQC such as damage particulars and quantum such as to justify striking out
  3. 3 Whether the declarations and inquiry sought were unavailable as a matter of law given plaintiffs had not incurred repair costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed EQC's strike-out and particulars applications because the plaintiffs had established genuine doubt under r 4.3(4) High Court Rules, Lumley's pleadings and correspondence justified the joinder, the pleading as amended and the further particulars filed adequately informed defendants of the case to be met, the strike-out threshold was not met and the declaratory and inquiry relief sought were not unavailable as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

First defendant's interlocutory applications dismissed.

Orders

  • The first defendant's interlocutory applications dated 28 February 2017 are dismissed
  • The first defendant is to pay to the plaintiffs the costs of the interlocutory applications together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar, with the amount of costs reserved