The closing submissions in the case of Kelly v EQC & Southern Response took place on 3 & 4 March 2015. This is the case notable for the defence by EQC and Southern Response that a weatherboard house in Burwood (TC3) with a post earthquake(s) floor differential of 88mm suffered no foundation damage in the earthquake(s) notwithstanding that the property moved downwards about 360mm and horizontally about 660mm and immediately adjacent houses suffered foundation damage. EQC and Southern Response also said that the floor differential was caused by the wind and a flax bush. EQC and Southern Response first said there was no foundation damage in September 2014 having accepted there was earthquake foundation damage for the previous 4 years. They chose not to call 10 people previously used by EQC and Southern Response who said there was foundation damage by earthquake and instead EQC and Southern Response and their lawyers rounded up a new gang of witnesses who tried to say there was no foundation earthquake damage. These people were Robert Davey (Opus); Anna Sleight (Tonkin & Taylor); Tim Day; Clive Anderson (Golders); Peter Duncan (Frontier). Nine lay witnesses also gave evidence of the state of the house and before and after the earthquake(s). The Judge was Mander J who used to work for Crown Law. It will be interesting to see how the Court deals with the overwhelming evidence of earthquake damage.
https://grantshand.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/logo.png 0 0 Grant Shand https://grantshand.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/logo.png Grant Shand2015-04-02 06:37:342015-09-23 07:49:38Kelly v EQC & Southern Response