The Christchurch EQC fiasco

Christchurch: Droves visit blogger's site

Christchurch residents have hammered an offshore website holding a leaked Earthquake Commission (EQC) email as lawyers debate the legal issues the saga raises.

Stuff,

12 April, 2013

As indicated by social media and comments to The Press website, droves have visited the website to see the sensitive information about their properties.

On Tuesday the High Court in Wellington granted EQC an injunction prohibiting release of the email but since then a blogger, who is a former EQC employee, has released parts of the email and an overseas website has obtained it. It is now easily available.

The email saga began last month when EQC accidentally released an email containing details on 83,000 properties damaged by the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011.

Many have discovered discrepancies between amounts reached by EQC estimators and the true cost of repairs. One homeowner found EQC had allocated about $50,000 for his repair when it was well over $120,000.

The original recipient of the email, businessman Bryan Staples of Earthquake Services Ltd, said the email should be most interesting to those EQC had "cash settled".

"They will be able to see if they got a fair settlement or whether EQC played hardball and screwed the estimated amount down," he said. Yesterday, police said they were still assessing a complaint against Staples by EQC and had not received a further complaint about the blogger.

Media law expert Steven Price said the court ruling granting the EQC injunction contains shocking omissions.

"I think there may be good grounds for the injunction.

"But I am shocked that the court has failed to address basic aspects of the law," he said on his blog.

The most glaring omission was the court's failure to address the fact EQC had to show, "it is in the public interest to enforce secrecy".

Justice David Collins had also completely neglected to mention the public interest defence claimed by the blogger.

"Nor did the judge apply the Bill of Rights, despite the fact that he cannot by law grant an injunction that affects free speech rights unless he finds that to do so is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

"I would have thought there was a fair case to be made that the free speech interests here are strong ones: the blogger has alleged the email reveals incompetent and biased claims assessment.

". . . in the absence of a proper analysis of the legal principles, he (the judge) provides no reason for us to be confident that he's got it right."

Ad Feedback

Christchurch lawyer Margo Perpick, a partner of Wynn Williams, added to the controversy yesterday by saying the Ombudsman had already supported EQC's position "that information about homeowners' EQC claims can be withheld from the homeowners concerned".

"In February 2012, the Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem decided EQC was justified in withholding the costs estimates within EQC's scope of works documents for some earthquake affected properties. For properties which had claims between $10,000 and $100,000 damage being managed by Fletcher EQR, and where agreements had not yet been reached with contractors to carry out the repairs, the EQC refused to release the cost estimates. The Ombudsman said that EQC was justified in doing so."

EQC had argued the costs estimates needed to be kept confidential until a contract was agreed and awarded, in order to ensure that all quotes were independently arrived at."

The Ombudsman accepted that position, Perpick said.

Prominent Auckland lawyer Mai Chen said EQC may be powerless to stop private information from the leaked email spreading through social media.

EQC was running up against the "limits of the law" in trying to get a practical outcome, she said.

Chen said that if individuals "willfully disregard the law", then EQC could have to sue "potentially dozens or hundreds of people" for breach of confidence or contempt of court.

"The problem is, sooner or later if the information is distributed widely enough, it will lose its confidential character, and at that point EQC will no longer be able to enforce confidentiality."

The following is an important and COMPLETELY TRUE statement that applies generally these days:

“I wish to remind everyone that neither EQC nor the government exists to look after you. Too many people think the benevolent and omnipotent government will look after you and have become needlessly dependent on the government. A government that can give you everything can also take everything as well. Every resource that the government has is because the government has used coercive force to extract it from someone else, usually through taxes or EQC levies (a euphemism for tax). Ultimately, you need to look after yourself and families need to band together, something that is not happening as much as it should in today’s world. For the most part, governments live off the backs of the people. Unfortunately, they have created a clever illusion and convinced most people that they get more from the government than what they put in. Whilst this is true in individual circumstances, the reality is that the people who benefit most from this arrangement are the insiders in government and the companies like Fletchers that know how to extract concessions from their friend in senior positions. “

http://eqctruths.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/here-it-is/