A High Court judgment has found Gerry Brownlee was entitled to consider red-zoners' insurance status when making compensation offers.

A group of uninsured Christchurch homeowners has lost an appeal for more compensation after claiming a Government offer was unlawful.

The Quake Outcasts group was seeking compensation of 100 per cent of 2007 rateable value (RV) for uninsured homes in the residential red zone. Their owners' lack of coverage meant they did not qualify for an initial Crown offer for that amount, despite being on earthquake-damaged land deemed uneconomic to repair.

The Outcasts group has already lobbied successfully to increase the compensation offers to red-zoners who owned vacant or commercial land. They, along with uninsured property owners, were initially offered 50 per cent RV for their land. Following a Supreme Court ruling last year, the Government upped that to 100 per cent RV for all three but maintained its position that uninsured property owners were not eligible for any payment for their homes.

JOHN KIRK-ANDERSON/FAIRFAX NZ Quake Outcasts lawyer Grant Cameron has previously said: "The funding is in place to take us through the court system as required."

The Outcasts labelled the disparity unacceptable and went back to court.

READ MORE:

* Quake Outcasts file new High Court proceedings against 'unlawful' land offer

* Supreme Court victory

* Four-year battle for justice

* Uninsured payouts 'unlawful'

In a High Court judgment issued on Monday, Justice Gerald Nation found then Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee was within his rights to consider insurance status when formulating a Crown compensation offer:

"He was entitled to have regard to whether and how properties were insured and to what extent that might be relevant to offers which the Crown might make for the purchase of properties in the red zone."

Brownlee was also allowed to consider the "moral hazard" of fully compensating home owners who did not have insurance, the judge found.

"In considering the way the purchases were to be funded, the [minister] was entitled to take into account what he considered would be the impact of the Government stepping in to assist people whose properties were not insured if it did so on the same terms as they had assisted those who were insured."

The Outcasts lawyer Grant Cameron could not be reached for comment on Monday night.

When the group, now numbering 20 claimants, filed the latest proceedings in February he said there was no intention of giving in, despite the drawn-out nature of the dispute.

"The funding is in place to take us through the court system as required."

The Outcasts initial case was first heard in July 2013 and was contested in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.