AUCKLAND COUNCIL V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT HC AK CIV 2012-404-5559

AUCKLAND COUNCIL V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT HC AK CIV 2012-404-5559

Because Coleman's claim was properly brought under s 18 as a stand-alone complex representative claim and the statutory mechanisms in ss 26 and 27 were followed to add Bamford, no separate eligibility decision by the Chief Executive was required or made; addition was administrative so there was no reviewable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-b9549cd2_d3d9_47b3_970a_bb7bc78984ad.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Auckland Council; First Defendant/first Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; Second Defendant/first Respondent: Patricia Ann Bamford; First Respondent: Robyn Coleman; Second Respondent/defendant: Johannes Laurentius Apers
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Eligibility Decision and Appeal From Weathertight Homes Tribunal Determinations / Final Judgment on Judicial Review and Appeals (decision Delivered)
Outcome
Council's judicial review application dismissed; Council's appeals dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eligibility Under Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, Limitation Periods and Long Stop Provisions, Joinder/addition of Owners to Representative Claims, Statutory Interpretation of Ss 14, 18, 21, 26, 27, 37 and S 393 Building Act 2004, Fair Trading Act 1986 Claim Against Report Writer, Negligence and Code Compliance Certificates
Administrative Law Building Law Civil Procedure Property Law Consumer Protection Law Eligibility Under Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 Limitation Periods and Long Stop Provisions Joinder/addition of Owners to Representative Claims +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Auckland Council

Plaintiff/appellant

The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

First Defendant/first Respondent

Patricia Ann Bamford

Second Defendant/first Respondent

Robyn Coleman

First Respondent

Johannes Laurentius Apers

Second Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Eligibility Decision and Appeal From Weathertight Homes Tribunal Determinations / Final Judgment on Judicial Review and Appeals (decision Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Executive made a reviewable eligibility decision when an owner of a unit in a stand-alone complex was added to an existing claim
  2. 2 Whether Ms Bamford's claim was statute-barred by s 37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 and s 393 of the Building Act 2004
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in treating Coleman’s claim as a s 14 single dwelling claim rather than a s 18 stand-alone complex claim

Ratio Decidendi

Because Coleman's claim was properly brought under s 18 as a stand-alone complex representative claim and the statutory mechanisms in ss 26 and 27 were followed to add Bamford, no separate eligibility decision by the Chief Executive was required or made; addition was administrative so there was no reviewable decision and Bamford's claim was not time-barred by s 37/s 393 as it properly related back to the existing eligible claim; the Fair Trading Act claim against Apers failed for lack of evidential foundation of loss or misleading conduct.

Court Disposition

Council's judicial review application dismissed; Council's appeals dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Council's appeal against Tribunal's decision on liability to Bamford dismissed