Kaikoura and Wellington businesses operating adjacent to quake damaged buildings may face disruption for years to come as owners drag their feet on repair or demolition work. A Christchurch property owner has been unable to completely re-open for business since the February 2011 earthquake.
This poster presents preliminary results of ongoing experimental campaigns at the Universities of Auckland and Canterbury, aiming at investigating the seismic residual capacity of damaged reinforced concrete plastic hinges, as well as the effectiveness of epoxy injection techniques for restoring their stiffness, energy dissipation, and deformation capacity characteristics. This work is part of wider research project which started in 2012 at the University of Canterbury entitled “Residual Capacity and Repairing Options for Reinforced Concrete Buildings”, funded by the Natural Hazards Research Platform (NHRP). This research project aims at gaining a better understanding and providing the main end-users and stakeholders (practitioner engineers, owners, local and government authorities, insurers, and regulatory agencies) with comprehensive evidence-based information and practical guidelines to assess the residual capacity of damaged reinforced concrete buildings, as well as to evaluate the feasibility of repairing and thus support their delicate decision-making process of repair vs. demolition or replacement.
In the aftermath of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand, the residual capacity and reparability of damaged reinforced concrete (RC) structures was an issue pertinent to building owners, insurers, and structural engineers. Three precast RC moment-resisting frame specimens were extracted during the demolition of the Clarendon Tower in Christchurch after sustaining earthquake damage. These specimens were subjected to quasi-static cyclic testing as part of a research program to determine the reparability of the building. It was concluded that the precast RC frames were able to be repaired and retrofitted to an enhanced strength capacity with no observed reduction in displacement capacity, although the frames with “shear-ductile” detailing exhibited less displacement ductility capacity and energy dissipation capacity than the more conventionally detailed RC frames. Furthermore, the cyclic test results from the earthquake-damaged RC frames were used to verify the predicted inelastic demands applied to the specimens during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. https://www.concrete.org/publications/acistructuraljournal.aspx
RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how? ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you see house prices rising, you might say the Government needs to do more” and “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”? SARAH DOWIE to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received showing New Zealand’s economic growth remains robust? Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: On what date was the Ministry of Health first made aware of data manipulation of the six-hour Emergency Department target by district health boards? CHRIS BISHOP to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding support for earthquake-affected businesses? METIRIA TUREI to the Minister for Building and Housing: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero, “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” i te mea, ā, e ai ki ngā tatauranga hou, nō mai anō i te tau Kotahi mano, iwa rau, rima tekau mā tahi, i taka ai te hunga whiwhi i tōna ake whare, ki raro rā nō? Translation: Does he stand by his statement that “The proportion of New Zealanders living in rental homes is not changing dramatically and owner-occupiers will remain the dominant living arrangement for most Kiwi families into the future” given that home ownership is at its lowest level since 1951, according to the latest census? STUART SMITH to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made regarding support for earthquake-affected primary sectors? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that Treasury forecasts are “a load of nonsense, because they can’t get predications in 44 days right, let alone 44 years”? ALFRED NGARO to the Minister for Building and Housing: What additional Auckland housing projects did he announce during last week’s recess, and what are the latest reports on the growth in construction across Auckland showing? Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident EQC will be employing the necessary resource to process and settle claims, from both the Canterbury earthquake sequence and the earthquake sequence of a fortnight ago, after 16 December; if so, why? DAVID SEYMOUR to the Minister of Police: What reassurance can she give to Epsom residents concerned that their Community Policing Centre will cease to operate after 24 years? IAN McKELVIE to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made recently that support the continued growth of the New Zealand wine export market?
In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf
ANDREW LITTLE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing given the falling rate of homeownership, especially among young people? RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? MATT DOOCEY to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “There are more jobs, and people are being better paid”; if so, why? Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said with regard to the Canterbury earthquakes, “on behalf of the Government, let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone”; if so, does he think all relevant information prepared by his Government has been made available to Cantabrians to assist them in navigating post-earthquake decisions? METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o āna kaupapa here Kāwanatanga katoa, nē? Translation: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies? Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about expanding 21st century learning options for parents and whanau? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: How will her Communities of Online Learning (CoOL) proposal differ from online charter schools in the United States, given a study partially funded by a private pro-charter foundation found students attending those schools lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading, and 180 days of learning in maths during the course of a 180-day school year? CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for the Environment: Will he commit to a regulatory regime that includes swimmable rivers in light of the comment from a Havelock North café owner who said that, “we’d trade all the compensation in the world if it would spur the Government into tidying up or cleaning up the waterways”? IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY to the Minister of Immigration: How many of the 209,000 work visas issued last year were for occupations on one of the Essential Skills in Demand lists? JONO NAYLOR to the Minister of Police: What is the Police doing to assist potential victims of family violence? STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she believe that the Police have enough resources to implement their part of the Prime Minister’s 2009 promise to use the full force of the Government’s arsenal to “confront the P problem” given that P is cheaper, and as easy as it was to get in 2008? PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in wine exports?