End of long legal battle marked by quiet dinner

Press, 16 September 1987, Page 9

End of long legal battle marked by quiet dinner

By

JANE DUNBAR

A quiet dinner with their lawyers last evening was the way a Christchurch couple marked the end of their 12-year battle with the Christchurch Drainage Board.

Michael and Adrienne Brown, of St Martins, heard yesterday the Privy Council had decided in their favour in their legal battle with the board.

The Drainage Board had taken the case to the council after the Browns won a suit against them, arguing that the board should have warned them about possible flooding from the Heathcote River. The Browns’ Palatine Terrace section had flooded for three years in succession in the 19705, and they argued they should have been warned about the likelihood of flooding When a building permit was issued.

After the High Court decision, the board appealed to the Privy Council against damages, interest and costs totalling $56,000 asserting the Browns were aware of the risk and the board did not have a “duty of care.” The Privy Council has now dismissed the board’s appeal. “We feel great now it’s over,” said Mr Brown last evening. It had been a long 12 years with financial and 'personal costs, and he was glad the matter was finished with.

The Browns fought their case on State legal aid, but their personal contribution had still amounted to nearly $20,000, he said. They have not had any trouble with flooding since the house was lifted at a cost of $48,000 in 1980. At that time, they won a damages judgment of $32,900.

The chairman of the Christchurch Drainage Board, Mr Newton Dodge, said he too was relieved the case was finished.

It did open up the disturbing possibility that there would be further cases of people challenging the board for not having given information about things which were never asked about, however, he said.

"We do need to protect ratepayers, but how protective can you be. If you take it to the extreme we must now endeavour to tell everybody everything, whether they want to know or not.”

In the decision, the Privy Council said authorities such as the Drainage Board existed “to protect the ignorant.” Lord Templeman, delivering judgment on behalf of. the Law Lords, said counsel for . the Drainage Board had sub-

mitted the Browns were “the authors of their own misfortune when they relied on Mrs Brown’s knowledge of flood levels, instead of asking the Drainage Board.

“But authorities such as the board should protect the ignorant and those whose little knowledge is dangerous,” he said. The Drainage Board also claimed the Heathcote County Council was to blame for not asking the board to check the flood danger.

"The evidence is that the board normally behaved in relation to building permits as though it had been asked to do so,” said Lord Templeman. A Uniinage Board; representative had inspected the site. The council ordered the board to pay the Browns costs. Lawyers said it was expected to double !i 'ih£ cost of the case. . .