Collis v Hypower Electrical Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-000163 [2016] NZHC 2652

BETWEEN
MICHAEL COLLIS and KEITH

CHARLES LANGTON Plaintiffs

AND

HYPOWER ELECTRICAL LIMITED First Defendant

AND

WAYNE MARK HYDES Second Defendant

Hearing: 7 November 2016

Appearances:

G M Brodie and A G M Whalan for the Plaintiffs
P J L Hunt and T W Clark for the Defendants

Date of ruling:

7 November 2016

RULING OF NATION J

[1] For reasons which I will give later, my ruling is that I will allow the amendment.

[2] Having regard to the interests of justice and having considered the briefs of evidence from the defendants to a limited extent, I consider the trial should proceed now. If it emerges, as a result of the trial, that there is going to be real prejudice to the defendants through not being able to present evidence as to potential causes of the fire independent of any fault in the electrical goods or system that was installed, there may have to be an opportunity for them to make further enquires and to present evidence in relation to that.

[3] All parties are ready to proceed in presenting evidence as to issues that are going to remain issues in the case. They were issues that have existed from the time

COLLIS & LANGTON v HYPOWER ELECTRICAL [2016] NZHC 2652 [7 November 2016]

the proceedings were commenced. I consider it is in the interests of justice, and in fact for both parties, for the trial to proceed but with that reservation as to what may happen later on.

Solicitors:
Geoffrey Brodie, Barrister, Christchurch
Rhodes & Co., Christchurch
McElroys, Auckland.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand Christchurch Registry, the plaintiffs Michael Collis and Keith Charles Langton brought an action against Hypower Electrical Limited and Wayne Mark Hydes, seeking damages for a fire that occurred at a property owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that the fire was caused by the defendants' negligence in the installation of electrical goods or systems. The defendants denied liability and argued that the fire was caused by an independent cause unrelated to their work.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiffs' amendment to their statement of claim should be allowed, and if so, whether the trial should proceed immediately or be delayed to allow the defendants to gather further evidence. The court needed to balance the interests of justice with the potential prejudice to the defendants if they were not given sufficient time to prepare their defence.

The court allowed the amendment to the plaintiffs' statement of claim, noting that the issues at hand had existed since the proceedings began. While acknowledging the potential for prejudice to the defendants if they were unable to present evidence of independent causes for the fire, the court decided that it was in the interests of justice for the trial to proceed immediately. The court left open the possibility of allowing the defendants to make further enquiries and present additional evidence if it became apparent during the trial that such evidence was necessary to avoid prejudice. The court's decision was based on the readiness of both parties to proceed with the presentation of evidence on the existing issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	7 November 2016
Appearances:	G M Brodie and A G M Whalan for the Plaintiffs P J L Hunt and T W Clark for the Defendants
Date of ruling:	7 November 2016