BODY CORPORATE 203710 V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2006-404-7416

BODY CORPORATE 203710 V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2006-404-7416

Summary judgment was entered for Building Code Consultants Limited because the Council could not establish the necessary element of reliance by the purchasers: contemporaneous documents and timing showed the purchaser of unit 1 did not rely on any alleged oral assurances and the purchasers of unit 14 were contractually bound before any alleged statements, so the Council's causes of action against BCCL could not succeed.

Citation
openlaw-499f7f35_4907_435b_bcd2_7cbcf9a5a167.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: BODY CORPORATE 203710; Second Plaintiff: ALBERTINE CONSTANCE TUBMAN & ORS; First Defendant: AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL; Second Defendant: BRENT FRANCIS HULENA; First Named Third Defendant: PROMANCO KENMAN (AUCKLAND) LIMITED; Second Named Third Defendant: NIGEL ANTHONY MCKENNA; Third Named Third Defendant: BRIAN DAVID WRENCH; Fourth Named Fourth Defendant: WILLIAM MARK PENNINGTON; Fourth Defendant: DOMAIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED; First Third Party: CLARRIE GALBRAITH & SON LIMITED; Second Third Party: HOMETECH LIMITED; Third Third Party: BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED; Fourth Third Party: JULIE FITZPATRICK; Fifth Third Party: SILVIA POLETTI; Sixth Third Party: GILLIAN BRODIE; Seventh Third Party: KELLAND'S REAL ESTATE LIMITED; Eighth Third Party: NICOLA BULL; Ninth Third Party: BUILDING CODE CONSULTANTS LIMITED; Tenth Third Party: NIGEL HAILSTONE; Eleventh Third Party: KELVIN WALLS; Twelfth Third Party: BRACEWELL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; First Fourth Party: PRENDOS LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil; Negligence (building Defects) / Application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment by Ninth Third Party (bccl)
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for Building Code Consultants Limited (ninth third party); Council's third-party claims against BCCL dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Contribution and Indemnity, Equitable Apportionment, Summary Judgment, Leaky Buildings
Tort Negligence Property Law Building Law Civil Procedure Negligent Misstatement Contribution and Indemnity Equitable Apportionment +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BODY CORPORATE 203710

First Plaintiff

ALBERTINE CONSTANCE TUBMAN & ORS

Second Plaintiff

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL

First Defendant

BRENT FRANCIS HULENA

Second Defendant

PROMANCO KENMAN (AUCKLAND) LIMITED

First Named Third Defendant

NIGEL ANTHONY MCKENNA

Second Named Third Defendant

BRIAN DAVID WRENCH

Third Named Third Defendant

WILLIAM MARK PENNINGTON

Fourth Named Fourth Defendant

DOMAIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

CLARRIE GALBRAITH & SON LIMITED

First Third Party

HOMETECH LIMITED

Second Third Party

BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED

Third Third Party

JULIE FITZPATRICK

Fourth Third Party

SILVIA POLETTI

Fifth Third Party

GILLIAN BRODIE

Sixth Third Party

KELLAND'S REAL ESTATE LIMITED

Seventh Third Party

NICOLA BULL

Eighth Third Party

BUILDING CODE CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Ninth Third Party

NIGEL HAILSTONE

Tenth Third Party

KELVIN WALLS

Eleventh Third Party

BRACEWELL CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Twelfth Third Party

PRENDOS LIMITED

First Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil; Negligence (building Defects) / Application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment by Ninth Third Party (bccl)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BCCL made actionable negligent misstatements to purchasers
  2. 2 Whether purchasers relied on any alleged statements such that BCCL owed liability
  3. 3 Whether Council can obtain contribution/indemnity or equitable apportionment from BCCL

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was entered for Building Code Consultants Limited because the Council could not establish the necessary element of reliance by the purchasers: contemporaneous documents and timing showed the purchaser of unit 1 did not rely on any alleged oral assurances and the purchasers of unit 14 were contractually bound before any alleged statements, so the Council's causes of action against BCCL could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for Building Code Consultants Limited (ninth third party); Council's third-party claims against BCCL dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Building Code Consultants Limited dismissing the First Defendant's causes of action against it in the second amended third‑party statement of claim dated 20 July 2012
  • Council's claims against BCCL in respect of units 1 and 14 dismissed