BODY CORPORATE 170812 AND ANOR V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2003-404-007259

BODY CORPORATE 170812 AND ANOR V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2003-404-007259

The Court held that the existing pleadings were broadly adequate but required amendment to expressly plead the Body Corporate's basis to incur and levy for repair costs (identify specific rules and resolutions relied upon) and to provide general particulars of the structural damage caused by exterior cladding defects; dates of notice/discovery are not required elements of the cause of action and are matters for evidence/interrogatories; defendants may obtain further factual detail by interrogatories and expert processes.

Citation
openlaw-b7df44d7_876b_43be_86fd_d8c8ecd8aba5.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Body Corporate 170812; Second Plaintiffs: Budiharto Widjaja & ors; First Defendant: Auckland City Council; Second Defendants: Dainty Alderton & Associates; Third Defendant: Manson Developments Limited; Third Party: Water Works Limited; First Plaintiff (second Proceeding): Body Corporate 180812; Second Plaintiffs (second Proceeding): Elisabeth Rachel Moors & ors
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Building Defects / Negligence (multi Unit Residential) / Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars Under R 185 of the High Court Rules (pre Trial)
Outcome
Interim orders granting partial particulars and permitting further interrogatories; plaintiffs to amend pleadings
Legal Topics
Particulars, Cause of Action, Limitation/discoverability, Standing of Body Corporate, Damages and Quantum, Remedial Costs
Civil Procedure Tort (negligence) Property Law Building and Construction Law Statutory Interpretation (unit Titles Act 1972) Particulars Cause of Action Limitation/discoverability +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate 170812

First Plaintiff

Budiharto Widjaja & ors

Second Plaintiffs

Auckland City Council

First Defendant

Dainty Alderton & Associates

Second Defendants

Manson Developments Limited

Third Defendant

Water Works Limited

Third Party

Body Corporate 180812

First Plaintiff (second Proceeding)

Elisabeth Rachel Moors & ors

Second Plaintiffs (second Proceeding)

Procedural Posture

Civil Building Defects / Negligence (multi Unit Residential) / Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars Under R 185 of the High Court Rules (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs must plead separate causes of action for the Body Corporate and individual unit owners
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs must plead damage to common property and individual units separately
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs must plead dates when defects or damage were discovered

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the existing pleadings were broadly adequate but required amendment to expressly plead the Body Corporate's basis to incur and levy for repair costs (identify specific rules and resolutions relied upon) and to provide general particulars of the structural damage caused by exterior cladding defects; dates of notice/discovery are not required elements of the cause of action and are matters for evidence/interrogatories; defendants may obtain further factual detail by interrogatories and expert processes.

Court Disposition

Interim orders granting partial particulars and permitting further interrogatories; plaintiffs to amend pleadings

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to file and serve amended statements of claim in both proceedings within 21 days, incorporating amended paragraph 20 and providing particulars of the specific body corporate rules and resolutions relied upon and general particulars of damage from cladding defects (reflecting para [39] and [65])
  • Manson Developments Limited granted leave to issue further interrogatories in respect of matters raised (dates of discovery and factual details) within 21 days; plaintiffs to respond to any such interrogatories within a further 21 days