New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Section 29(4) earthquake commission act 1993

  • 20 Dec 2022

    IDEAL INVESTMENTS LTD v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2022] NZCA 641

    Citation
    [2022] NZCA 641
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Judge correctly refused leave because the proposed class lacked a significant common issue: s 29(4) requires assessment on the facts of each claim and does not create a collective, date‑certain liability for all pre‑2012 earthquake claims; Ideal failed to identify any arguable legal or factual error in that finding and its proposed amendment would not cure the logical defect, so leave to appeal was refused.

    • Representative proceedings
    • Class certification
    • Section 29(4) earthquake commission act 1993
    • Leave to appeal interlocutory decision

  • 17 May 2022

    IDEAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2022] NZHC 1079

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 1079
    Court
    High Court

    The application for leave to bring a representative action was dismissed because the proposed common issue was improperly framed: whether EQC breached s 29(4) was held to depend on the circumstances of each individual claim and therefore was not a suitable common issue for a representative proceeding; the draft notice of appeal did not identify a reasonably arguable ground attacking that core basis and leave to appeal was declined.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Common issue framing
    • Section 29(4) earthquake commission act 1993
    • Representative action

  • 9 Mar 2022

    IDEAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED v THE EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION [2022] NZHC 400

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 400
    Court
    High Court

    The application for leave to bring a representative proceeding was declined because the proposed common issue (that EQC should have resolved all pre‑2012 Canterbury earthquake claims by 4 June 2015 and thereby breached s 29(4)) improperly aggregates fact‑specific inquiries that must be assessed claim by claim. Section 29(4) imposes obligations in respect of individual claims; therefore a global deadline cannot be treated as a single common issue creating res judicata for tens of thousands of diverse claims. The class definition and common issue were insufficiently certain and failed the same…

    • Representative proceedings (r 4.24 high court rules 2016)
    • Section 29(4) earthquake commission act 1993
    • Common issue and class definition
    • Damages for delayed statutory payment
    • Assignability of causes of action
    • Interest on money claims act 2016