Reserved judgment — recovery of costs — negligence — vicarious liability — property fire — admissibility of evidence — hearsay — insurance — Evidence Act 2006, ss 16 & 18 — Property Law Act 2007, ss 268, 269 & 270 — Galbraith v Alderson Logistics Limited [2013] NZHC 3102 — Linklater v Dickison [2017] NZHC 2813 — Sheehan v Watson [2011] NZLR 314. These proceedings arose from a fire at a warehouse. The plaintiff was the owner of the the warehouse and the land where it stood, and the defendant had been the tenant of the warehouse at the time. The defendant had used the warehouse to store a variety of items for its customers. After the fire, the plaintiff incurred significant costs in demolishing the building and cleaning up and removing the debris. The plaintiff now sought from the defendant recovery of some of the clean-up costs. It sued the defendant in negligence, waste and trespass. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had caused the fire when one of the defendant's employees threw a cigarette on the ground, and it ignited cardboard boxes inside the warehouse. The plaintiff submitted that it had a witness statement that supported its account of how the fire started, but the witness was now unable to be located. Therefore the plaintiff applied to admit the witness statement as hearsay evidence. The Court concluded that s 269 of the Property Law Act, that stated that a lessor with insurance cover could not require a lessee to pay for damage caused by fire, exonerated the defendant for any loss suffered by the plaintiff. Therefore the claim in waste failed. There could also be no claim in trespass, because the activities on the site had the permission of the plaintiff. Finally, the Court found that the witness statement was too unreliable to support an action in negligence, especially given that expert witnesses had been unable to conclusively state how the fire had started. The claim was dismissed. Judgment Date: 28 March 2024