Lawyers for more than 100 Christchurch homeowners have delivered a letter to the Earthquake Commission (EQC) outlining a group action seeking declarations from the High Court.

Peter Woods, a partner at law firm Anthony Harper, has been working on the proceedings for more than 18 months, helped by public interest advocacy group Law For Change and 40 volunteers from the University of Canterbury School of Law.

The class action seeks three sets of declarations from the High Court around the EQC’s interpretation of the EQC Act.

“The EQC’s interpretation has left many outstanding claims in dispute and potentially many settled claims now in doubt,” Mr Woods said.

“This is not a class action for damages. The group action is seeking declaratory judgements on how the EQC interprets the EQC Act. These judgements cover serious issues and will have far-reaching implications for all New Zealanders.”

The declarations cover the extent of the EQC’s liability when it elects to settle by payment, replacement or reinstatement.

“Where the EQC Act states the definition of ‘replacement value’ is ‘when new’ and compliant with the building code, the EQC has chosen to consider only the pre-earthquake condition of a building,” Mr Woods said.

The homeowners complain the EQC has been arguing it needs only to repair in “a reasonably sufficient manner” rather than to “when new” standards. They accuse the EQC of “systematically lowering the standard of repair, limiting its true liability”.

Mr Woods says the EQC’s reluctance to accept liability extends to what it is willing to repair. The EQC maintains it is only liable for earthquake damage and not for the cost of related work.

“In our view, the EQC clearly does have that liability,” he said.

“If the only way of replacing or reinstating earthquake-damaged parts of a building is to do work on other parts of the building that are undamaged, the cost of working on those other parts is simply part of the cost of replacing or reinstating the earthquake-damaged parts, and accordingly is a cost for which the EQC is liable.”

The EQC insists it wants to resolve the repair issues with all customers who have joined the proposed action, but it wants to deal with each individual claim separately.

“Anthony Harper has yet to provide the EQC with the concerns of each individual claim,” it said in response to the letter. “The EQC does not believe it is appropriate to try to agree to detailed abstract declarations as currently proposed by Anthony Harper.

“The EQC considers that the most practical way to resolve the issues of the customers who have joined the proposed group action is to work with them directly.”