[65] The evidence of Dr Pentice was that the plaintiff was capable of performing many of the household chores[51]. Evidence was given by Mr Sylvester however that the plaintiff suffered when she attempted heavier household tasks such as vacuuming or mopping floors, scrubbing bathrooms, changing linen on beds or tasks such as cleaning windows or carrying heavier groceries. These were all tasks the plaintiff performed before the accident. While the plaintiff is now more able, on the view I take based upon the evidence, of performing many of the tasks about the house, such as meal preparation, pulling up the bedclothes, dusting, light laundry and stacking and unstacking a dishwasher that her evidence would suggest I accept that the plaintiff had difficulty performing these tasks for an extended period post accident. I accept that after the accident the plaintiff was provided services by her husband that were necessary[52] that the need for the services arose solely out of the injury[53] and that at times when the plaintiff suffered intense pain, most if not all of the household and domestic duties would have been performed by her husband. Notwithstanding the reservations I have had about the reliability of the plaintiff's evidence I do accept that for a period of up to two years post accident she required such domestic assistance and that the tasks previously performed by herself were performed by her husband. On average I would assess that the services provided by Mr Sylvester during that period took 7.5 hours per week.[54] At 7.5 hours per week when the agreed hourly rate is applied for two years the calculated figure is $21,450. On the evidence which I accept by a time at approximately two years post accident the plaintiff's needs for personal care and for assistance in the performance of domestic duties were greatly reduced. Consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kriz v King[55] the plaintiff is entitled to an award for past (and for future) care once the threshold laid down by s 59(1)(c) of the Civil Liability Act 2003 has been met. The most reliable guide for the quantification of the hours of care necessary to meet the plaintiff's needs for the approximately 40 weeks have passed since the second anniversary of the accident can be found in the report from Ms Jones of 5 January 2012[56] which assesses that need at approximately 1.25 hours per week at the agreed rate, a calculation of 1.25 hours for weeks is $1,375.00. I propose to award $22,825 for past care.