Ohau¯ landowners blame lines company for $40m fire losses
Court tells plaintiffs to refine their claim, provide more detail on actual losses
Property owners whō say they suffered more than $40 million in damages when a fire devastated Lake Ohau Village in the South Island in 2020 have been told by the High Court to refine their statement of claim.
More than 100 plaintiffs allege electricity lines company Network Waitaki was negligent in maintaining a power pole and its failure started the scrub fire, which took more than a week to extinguish across 5,000ha on the shoreline of Lake O¯ hau, in the Mackenzie Basin near Twizel.
The plaintiffs are relying on the result of a Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fenz) investigation to allege blame. Fenz investigated several possible causes of the fire or fires — whether there was one or two fires is a matter of dispute — and concluded the most probable cause was the failure of a pole’s cross-arm.
A report by Mitton Electrical Investigations similarly concluded this was the most likely cause.
Other aspects around what started the fire and what material came from the pole failure are also in dispute.
Network Waitaki says the plaintiffs’ case is no more than a hypothesis and one that involves an unacceptable level of generality.
Both parties have been arguing over the statement of claim and disclosures. A hearing in February this year was held in the High Court at Timaru to sort out the way forward.
Lawyers for the lines company argued that the plaintiffs had to be more specific about what was lost than saying “in excess of $40m”.
The plaintiffs said they were quantifying their losses after the destruction of their property (and in some cases associated records) and will provide further details following discovery and before trial.
They described the blaze as the largest urban fire in New Zealand history, with 48 homes destroyed and six others seriously damaged. They argued that determining their losses is a large, complex and ongoing quantification project.
Network Waitaki said detailing the claim was difficult for some, but more than three years had now passed and the plaintiffs should be able to give a better assessment.
In a judgment, Associate Judge Owen Paulsen agreed with Network Waitaki and ordered more detail to be given.
The lines company also argued that the property owners should be more specific in how it was negligent.
The owners said the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the pole failure and did not have appropriate systems of inspection and maintenance. Network Waitaki said unless there was more detail, there would be “an impermissible fishing expedition” after the discovery of documents to find fault.
Judge Paulsen disagreed with the lines company. While the plaintiffs’ claim could be improved, their pleading was clear and whether Network Waitaki complied with best practice would be a matter for expert evidence at trial. “The plaintiffs cannot be expected to identify deficiencies in the content or application of those systems prior to discovery,” he wrote.
He ordered the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim with more details about the damage they claim to have suffered.
They were also asked to provide more detail about what material they believed fell to the ground and started the blaze, as well as when they say the two fires merged. If they don’t know when, they should say so.