CASE HISTORY

Craig’s cases reflect his broad civil and public law practice.  His focus is on insurance and commercial disputes, and public law issues. 

Insurance indemnity and recovery claims, including arson litigation.

  • Fletcher Construction Company Ltd v XAM Ltd HC Auckland Registry CIV 2022-404-461.  Counsel for the second defendant who was the torch-on butynol applicator at the NZ International Convention Centre at the time of the 2019 fire.  The claim is c$430m, set down for a 14-week fixture from 9 June 2025.

  • Wakefield v Network Waitaki Limited HC Christchurch Registry CIV-2023-476-009. Acting for the 1187 plaintiffs who lost property in the 2020 Lake Ohau valley fire (NZ’s largest urban fire). Judgments to date have been interlocutory applications. see [2024] NZHC 97 and [2024] NZC 614.

  • Leisure Investments NZ Limited Partnership v Grace [2023] NZCA 89 (The Christchurch Port Hills fire case.)  Co-counsel for the respondents.  Leisure Investments appealed both liability and quantum. The appeal was dismissed. The High Court judgment for the resident plaintiffs was upheld in full.

  • Work v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2023] NZHC 3428. Counsel for IAG defending the insureds’ claim for indemnity and exemplary damages. Defences of arson and fraud were successfully established in a four-week trial.  The insureds have appealed, which will be argued in May 2025 - CA 27/2024.

  • Work v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2022] NZCA 336. Counsel for respondent. The appellants appealed the High Court’s judgments declining recall, leave, a pre-trial hearing, reversal of cost orders and a stay. All were declined.

  • Grace v Orion New Zealand Ltd [2021] NZHC 705. Counsel for the 80 homeowners insured by IAG, suing (under subrogation) for their insured and their uninsured losses from the Christchurch Port Hills’ fires of 2017. The first defendant settled part way through the nine-week trial. Judgment was obtained against the second defendant for further losses of $10.3m. 

  • Work v IAG New Zealand Ltd HC Wellington CIV-2019-404-1267; [2021] NZHC 3058; [2022] NZHC 380; [2022] NZHC 1201. The plaintiffs brought multiple applications concerning a judicial settlement conference – all have failed (the judgments are suppressed). Numerous costs have been ordered in favour of IAG including wasted costs when a four-week trial had to be belatedly vacated.

  • Bayley v Vero Insurance Limited HC Christchurch CIV 2017-409-413. Counsel for the plaintiffs. Vero had refused to pay the indemnity loss under its policy or to meet the repair costs for a large commercial building that was damaged in the Christchurch earthquakes. The claim was settled following a judicial settlement conference.

  • Keys v IAG New Zealand Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-00342. Counsel for IAG in respect of a fire claim seeking replacement of a two storied home following a small contained fire in its lean-to garage.  Over 30 witnesses were briefed including origin and cause, loss adjusting, civil, geotechnical and structural engineers, bio-deterioration and wood mycology, chemistry, architecture, valuation, quantity surveying and psychiatry experts. It was settled following a two day mediation.

  • Drayton v IAG New Zealand Limited HC Christchurch CIV 2016-409-1091. Counsel for IAG defending a Canterbury earthquakes claim. The owners of a 138m2 heritage listed home sought $3.8m plus general damages for proposed repairs. The claim was settled on the second day of an eight day hearing following cross examination of the plaintiff. 

  • Robinson v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2016] NZHC 3149. Counsel for IAG in respect of blackmail, arson and insolvency issues involving a business investor scheme immigrant who, through a remote computer-ignition device, burnt his home and contents while he was 300kms away.  The insured sued IAG, its fire investigators and his bank for $6.3m. He was subsequently bankrupted. The Official Assignee disclaimed the claim. The insured applied for the claim to re-vest in him under the Insolvency Act. The court dismissed his application. 

  • Rout v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2013] NZHC 3262. Counsel for Southern Response in a dispute under an all-risks insurance policy as to whether repair or replacement was required for the insureds’ home following the Christchurch earthquakes. Particular focus was on the building’s foundations and the amount claimed for this.

  • Shaw v IAG New Zealand Ltd HC Wellington CIV-2016-404-727. Counsel for IAG defending an indemnity claim.  Defences of arson and material non-disclosure were pleaded.  This was a technical fire claim with multiple experts including cause and origin, electrical engineering, fire dynamics, metallurgical and loss-adjuster experts. The plaintiffs discontinued following evidence establishing that the fire was deliberately lit. 

  • Tool Team 2010 Ltd v IAG New Zealand Ltd HC Wellington CIV-2012-485-703 and CIV-2012-404-600. Counsel for IAG defending a fire loss claimed by a tenant under its business interruption and material damage policy. Affirmative defences of arson and making a fraudulent insurance claim were pleaded. Coincidentally IAG was suing their insured tenant for the damage suffered by the landlord. 19 expert and lay witnesses were briefed for IAG. On the fifth day of a four week trial, following cross examination of the insured tenant and his character witness, the tenant and his company consented to judgment against them for fraud (with costs), and arson with a denial of liability (but with costs). 

  • Brandlines Ltd v Central Forklift Group Ltd HC Wellington CIV-2008-485-2803 and CIV-2009-485-384. Counsel for Exide Technologies Ltd, the second defendant in a claim for the loss of a warehouse from a fire allegedly caused by an electrical forklift battery charger. After eight weeks of a 12 week hearing involving numerous expert witnesses the plaintiffs discontinued and paid costs.

Other commercial litigation

  • Johnson v Johnson [2023] NZCA 566. Acting for the appellant in a judgment under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. An application to adduce further evidence was granted, the appeal allowed in part, the respondent’s cross-appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded.

  • Criffel Deer Ltd v ANZ New Zealand Ltd HC Wellington [2022] 2175. Judgment for counsel for the Garnham companies granting counsel leave to withdraw.

  • Criffel Deer Ltd v ANZ New Zealand Ltd HC Wellington [2022] NZHC 2175. Counsel for the plaintiff companies suing their banker for $34.5m arising from the loss of a commercial building. The claim was struck out.

  • Johnson v Jarden Custodians Ltd [2022] NZHC 1817. Counsel for the fourth to thirteenth defendants to successfully oppose a summary judgment proceeding alleging breaches of Fair Trading Act, fiduciary duties, deceit and injurious falsehood. The proceeding was discontinued. An undertaking was given by the plaintiff that she would never reissue a similar claim. Costs of $61k were awarded on a mix of 3C and 3B basis, plus a 50% uplift.

  • Rongotai Investments Ltd v Bunnings Ltd [2022] NZHC 1664. Counsel for the appellant in respect to the Land Valuation Tribunal’s decision concerning the method of calculation and analysis for sales comparisons when assessing land rentals for 27 titles against a hypothetical ‘modal’ site.

  • Johnson v Johnson [2021] NZHC 2432. Counsel for the applicant to obtain judgment for indemnity costs to defend the respondent’s application seeking that our solicitor, and we, as counsel, should be sanctioned and subject to independent solicitors’ supervision. 

  • W Hensch Ltd v Scott [2021] NZDC 2924. Counsel for the plaintiff on a pro bono basis (but subsequently costs were awarded) to obtain payment of $14,795 owing under a building ‘time and materials’ repair contract. (The Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction was unavailable because of the Construction Contracts Act.) Payments ceased when the building company’s managing director suffering a serious work-related head injury, albeit that this had no impact on the repairs. 

  • Johnson v Johnson [2021] NZHC 2220. Counsel for the plaintiff to obtain summary judgment pursuant to ss178 and 191 of the Companies Act.  This enabled the plaintiff to obtain, as a director/shareholder in his deadlocked companies, financial information that had been wrongly withheld.

  • Body Corporate 490075 v Auckland Council HC Auckland CIV-2021-404-230.  Counsel for the second and third defendants (the developer and an asset manager) of an alleged defectively clad 16 story residential conversion in central Auckland – ongoing.

  • Johnson v Johnson [2020] NZHC 1563. Counsel to defend a derivative application under s 165 of the Companies Act. One defendant sought to act for a defendant company against her deadlocked fellow director and former husband. The application was dismissed including because her derivative application was brought for an ulterior purpose. 

  • Croser v Focus Genetics Ltd Partnership CIV 2019-485-164; [2019] NZHC 627. Counsel for Australian sheep farmers who sued Focus Genetics, a subsidiary of Landcorp, concerning a genetics breeding programme. Focus had refused to give them access to data in respect of their stud flock that Crosers had laboured and paid for. Damages were also sought. Two urgent mandatory injunctions were obtained so breeding plans could be prepared to optimise their flock and avoid in-breeding, and so genetic data could be included in ram sales advertising. These cases considered whether the tests for mandatory and prohibitive injunctions were different.

  • Croser v Focus Genetics Ltd Partnership [2020] NZCA 367.  A successful appeal in another Croser proceeding that considered whether the parties were bound by a settlement that was subject to documenting the agreed terms. It overturned a summary judgment that had held that no concluded agreement was reached. Settlement was then able to be effected.

  • Spencer v Bryner: HC Wellington [2019] NZHC 1762. Counsel for the defendant acting on a pro-bono basis.  She brought a third party claim against her solicitors for loss of bargain because they failed to provide a pre-settlement disclosure statement to the purchasers of her apartment in compliance with the Unit Titles Act. The failure enabled the purchasers to cancel. The case considered what was necessary to constitute a new cause of action. The matter was satisfactorily settled before the substantive trial. 

  • LMLW Ltd v Armstrong Murray [2017] NZHC 2635. Counsel for the plaintiff to obtain summary judgment to enforce a solicitors’ undertaking. The claim recovered $500,000 held in the solicitors’ trust account. The court held that it was improper that the solicitor had failed to comply with their undertaking.   

  • Knowles v Knowles HC Masterton HC CIV-2016-435-17. Counsel for the defendant defending his brother’s widow’s claim for Property Law Act orders to compulsorily sell a trust’s farm and two lifestyle properties surrounding the defendant’s home. The plaintiff had materially greater resources which she hoped to then spend outbidding the defendant upon any order for sale. The case dealt with the criteria the Court should consider for a division of property amongst co-owners. After cross examination the plaintiff discontinued. 

  • Re Trustees Executors Ltd [2013] NZHC 1439; TEL v Fund Managers Canterbury Ltd [2014] NZHC 2444 and [2015] NZHC 41; and [2016] NZHC 2194. Counsel for the plaintiff Trustee (TEL) against the former manager, directors, chief executive and auditor of the Canterbury Mortgage Trust.  The claim was for losses by the unit holders who had invested in the trust.  TEL was successful in bringing a Beddoe application to support the removal of the trust’s manager, and in defending an attempt to strike out the fund’s auditor (Deloitte), and it was an interested party in determining whether a D&O insurance policy responded to the claim.  The claim was then able to be settled ahead of trial.

  • Re Tower Ltd HC Wellington CIV-2012-485-2628. Counsel for Tower for the return of $120m of capital to shareholders under a scheme of arrangement under part 15 of the Companies Act. Relevantly Tower was dual listed in NZ and Australian and was also highly regulated, including as to solvency. 

  • Focus Genetics Ltd Partnership v Soldiers Trading Ltd [2015] NZHC 2127. Counsel for the defendant cattle farming company about its cancellation of a genetic breeding programme.  A contested interim injunction was granted.  The dispute was then resolved prior to the substantive hearing. 

  • Perry Corporation v Ithaca (Custodians) Ltd CA43/03.  Counsel for the appellant to overturn the refusal to stay a High Court ruling prohibiting Perry from voting its shares.  Without the stay independent directors would likely have not been re-elected. The Court held: “We are not able to regard the appointment of directors as unimportant. … We also note that this case … has been to enforce a regulatory requirement. The proceedings therefore can be seen as quasi-public in nature.” (I also was counsel with AR Galbraith KC in Perry’s successful substantive (full court) appeal, 1 NZLR [2004] 731, and with Jonathan Sumption KC in the Privy Council appeal.)

  • Taylor v Rotowax Trading Ltd [1998] 1NZLR 674. Counsel for Rotowax in the Court of Appeal and in the Privy Council to successfully restrain the appellants from competing with the business they had sold. 

Judicial review and declaratory judgments

  • Petersen v Kapiti Coast District Council [2023] NZHC 2994. Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 application. Acting for the developer of 135 proposed dwellings. Successfully resisted a judicial review concerning the entitlement to public notification under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

  • Body Corporate 375933 v The Tenancy Tribunal [2017] NZAR 1555. Counsel for a body corporate in judicial review proceedings challenging the Tenancy Tribunal’s ruling that it had jurisdiction to determine declarations sought by a former unit holder that the BC’s special general meeting, and the resolutions passed at it, were invalid and ultra vires.  The High Court holding that the Tenancy Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear what was a moot case. 

  • Official Assignee v Trustees Executors Ltd [2014] NZHC 345. Counsel for TEL in declaratory judgment proceedings by the Official Assignee seeking to reconcile the competing statutory provisions under the Insolvency Act and KiwiSaver Act as to whether entitlements to KiwiSaver members’ accounts upon, during and after bankruptcy, should vest in the OA.

  • Official Assignee v Trustees Executors Ltd [2015] 3 NZLR 224 (CA). Subsequent successful (pro-bono) appeal to obtain a declaration that bankrupts’ KiwiSaver interests did not vest in the OA.

  • Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Inc v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [2014] NZCA 179, [2014] 3 NZLR 541. Counsel for the (then) New Zealand Fire Service Commission on various levy disputes under the Fire Service Act 1975 including declaratory judgment proceeding in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.  

  • Okkerse v Niban Holdings (2007) Ltd HC Wellington CIV 2015-485-448. Counsel for the plaintiffs in declaratory proceedings alleging breaches of the Companies Act, breach of contract, and seeking orders for relief from unfair discrimination, oppression, and prejudice.  The defendants settled for the sum claimed at the start of hearing an application to secure payment. 

  • Brown v Trustees Executors Ltd HC Wellington CIV-2013-485-8158. Defending proceedings against TEL under the Declaratory Judgments Act and the Trustee Act relating to alleged group insurance life cover for a deceased’s estate.  The plaintiff, after cross-examination, discontinued on the second day of trial. 

Other public law, local government, RMA, LVT

  • Whakaari White Island Coronial Inquiry CSU-2019-Rot-000543-061.  Counsel for Hato Hone St John in respect of the inquest into the Whakaari eruption.  The inquest commences 6 October 2025 and will run for several weeks.

  • Flath v Minister for Land Information. [2024] NZHC 36. Pro bono, counsel for the appellants in an appeal against the decision of the Land Valuation Tribunal concerning the correct approach to be taken for compensation of compulsory partial takes of land and the assessment of injurious affection under the Public Works Act 1981.  The appeal was allowed, with costs, but the compensation was unchanged.  Applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal were declined. [2024] NZHC 1739; [2025] NZCA 40.

  • Flath v Minister for Land Information [2022] NZLVT 30. Counsel for Claimants in the Land Valuation Tribunal for compensation for 1917m2 of their land which was compulsorily acquired for the Kapiti Expressway and for injurious affection. 

  • Fugle v R [2017] NZRMA 359 (CA), Fugle v R [2017] NZSC 24. Counsel for defendants in respect of 14 RMA prosecutions relating to sediment run-off from a subdivision development.  Jury trial was elected. A Preliminary strike out application about the ability of Council’s enforcement officers to “inspect” rather than “search” private land under a warrant was appealed. It was only partially successfully.  Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed.  A guilty plea to one representative charge against the company was then entered. 

  • Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Pike River Mine Tragedy (final report 30 October 2012). Counsel for Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd in the Royal Commission and in various high court civil proceedings.

  • Counsel for Wellington City Council at various Coronial Inquiries, High Court and Court of Appeal proceedings.  These typically involved Council’s decision making or because of potential adverse publicity: e.g. Easton v Wellington City Council [2011] NZCA 27; Inquest into the death of Venessa Ann Green CSU Decision No 8/2015; Goulden v Wellington City Council HC WN CIV-2004-485-1, 21 April 2006

  • Kapiti Environmental Action Inc v Frandi [2003] 2 NZLR 338 (CA). Lead counsel (pro-bono) for appellant in “a test case… on a difficult question of interpretation of the [RMA]”. It resulted in the amendment to s221(3) RMA in 2005.

  • Koutou Parks Ltd v Kapiti Coast District Council EnvC A73/2000 Sheppard ECJ, 13 June 2000. This was a landmark (pro-bono, 12 day) appeal that overturned an intense residential subdivision consent. It dealt with the appropriate intensity of development in a residential zone that was surrounded by the Waikanae Estuary Reserve on one side and a DOC Scenic Reserve on the other. The court observed that, despite the residential zoning, “It does not imply that every part of every piece of land in the zone may be subdivided to the maximum intensity, irrespective of environmental effects”.

Regulatory proceedings

  • Name Supressed v Wellington Standards Committee 2 of the New Zealand Law Society (2015) 22 PRNZ 445. Counsel for a practitioner (pro-bono) in the Lawyers and Conveyancers’ Disciplinary Tribunal and on appeal to the High Court. Strike-off was sought by the NZLS. Censure had been ordered. A stay was obtained pending appealed. On appeal, during the second day hearing, orders permanently prohibiting publication of the practitioner’s name and a reduction of costs ordered at first instance were granted.

  • Perpetual Trust Ltd v Financial Markets Authority [2012] NZHC 1469; [2012] NZCA 298 and [2012] NZCA 308; Trustees Executors Ltd v Perpetual Trust Ltd [2012] NZHC 1678; [2012] NZHC 1817 and [2012] NZHC 1937. Counsel for TEL as Statutory Supervisor and as an Intervener in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.  Obtaining urgent orders under s 49 of the Securities Act, including having an “observer” appointed, recovery of $20m, and removal of confidentiality orders.