Econicorp Holdings Ltd v Minister of Education

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Elias CJ,McGrath,William Young JJ
• Judgment Date: 05 December 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] NZSC 148
• Docket Number: SC 107/2011
• Date: 05 December 2011

[2011] NZSC 148

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Court:

Elias CJ, McGrath and William Young JJ

SC 107/2011

Between

Econicorp Holdings Limited

Applicant

and

Minister of Education

Respondent

Counsel:

R J Hollyman for Applicant

M S R Palmer, R Chan and T M Bromwich for Respondent

Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court by a building company against a Court of Appeal decision reinstating a cause of action in negligence which was struck out in the High Court, in respect of the construction of a school hall — whether it was in the interests of justice that the Supreme Court hear this proposed appeal ahead of trial — whether there was prejudice to the applicant by not hearing the appeal ahead of trial within the terms of s13(4) Supreme Court Act 2003.

At issue was whether it was in the interests of justice that the Supreme Court hear this proposed appeal ahead of trial.

Held: As the proposed appeal was against an order made by the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory application, s13(4) Supreme Court Act 2003 required the Supreme Court to refuse leave to appeal, unless satisfied it was necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the appeal ahead of trial. If leave were given and the Econicorp's appeal was successful, the dispute would still proceed to trial with the Crown, the Board, Econicorp and the designer all parties. Econicorp would not have to address the claim from the Crown, which would be confined to its tort claim against the design company, but trial of the factual issues concerning causation of the loss and its quantum would not be significantly affected by that. In these circumstances there was little inconvenience, let alone prejudice, to Econicorp in going to trial on the Crown's claim as well as that of the Board under its negligence cause of action.

There were potential issues concerning what losses the plaintiffs would each be able to recover as owner and occupier respectively of the school hall. If a trial found Econicorp liable to either or both, that Court was likely to be in a better position to determine which losses may be recovered and any questions of apportionment between defendants and contribution.

Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent of $2500.

REASONS

1 This application for leave to appeal arises out of the construction of a school hall in...