BODY CORPORATE 212050 V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-004515

BODY CORPORATE 212050 V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-004515

Application for a separate preliminary Limitation Act hearing is declined because there is significant overlap of evidence between the limitation issue and substantive liability, the net time savings are minimal relative to duplication and risk of wasted time if the defendants fail, and the risk of appeals and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-ffa3784d_5065_47ec_aac7_038dd5268c48.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: BODY CORPORATE 212050; Second Plaintiffs: TZU-YING LEE & OTHERS; First Defendant: HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED; Second Defendant: JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; Third Defendant: SCOTT ALLEN; First Third Party: MATTHEW VESEY; Second Third Party: LYNDON LEE MCDOUGALL
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Split Trial to Determine Limitation Act Issue
Outcome
Application for split trial to determine Limitation Act issues declined
Legal Topics
Split Trials, Limitation Act 1950, Statute of Limitations, Weathertightness Defects, Duty of Care, Accrual of Cause of Action, Preliminary Question
Civil Procedure Construction Law Tort Property Law Limitation Law Split Trials Limitation Act 1950 Statute of Limitations +4 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BODY CORPORATE 212050

First Plaintiff

TZU-YING LEE & OTHERS

Second Plaintiffs

HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

First Defendant

JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Second Defendant

SCOTT ALLEN

Third Defendant

MATTHEW VESEY

First Third Party

LYNDON LEE MCDOUGALL

Second Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Split Trial to Determine Limitation Act Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order a separate preliminary hearing to determine limitation defences under the Limitation Act 1950
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs' causes of action accrued in 2003 so claims are statute-barred
  3. 3 Whether the issues and evidence are sufficiently discrete to justify a split trial

Ratio Decidendi

Application for a separate preliminary Limitation Act hearing is declined because there is significant overlap of evidence between the limitation issue and substantive liability, the net time savings are minimal relative to duplication and risk of wasted time if the defendants fail, and the risk of appeals and resultant delay would prejudice remaining plaintiffs; overall justice requires a single trial.

Court Disposition

Application for split trial to determine Limitation Act issues declined

Orders

  • Application declined
  • First and second defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs on a 2B basis