New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building act 1991

Legal area

Court

13 Jul 2010

NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL V BODY CORPORATE 189855 AND ANOR SC 28/2010

Citation

SC 28/2010
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether a local authority exercising functions under the Building Act 1991 owes a duty of care to purchasers (including investor owners, subsequent purchasers and bodies corporate) to ensure building code compliance and to assess the effect of a declined code compliance certificate; the grant of leave establishes these questions as appropriate for full appellate determination.
28 Apr 2010

PROPERTY VENTURES INVESTMENTS LIMITED V REGALWOOD HOLDINGS LIMITED SC 85/2008

Citation

PROPERTY VENTURES INVESTMENTS LIMITED V REGALWOOD HOLDINGS LIMITED SC 85/2008
Court

Supreme Court

Summary judgment was wrongly granted because on the assumed facts there was a serious dispute of material fact and Regalwood, being in an alleged material breach, had not demonstrated it was 'ready, able and willing' to settle; clause 6.5 does not compel settlement in full where the vendor's breach is material (Flight v Booth principle applies) and the purchaser could assert equitable set-off or seek specific performance with abatement; the matter must proceed as an ordinary action and was remitted to the High Court.
3 Jul 2009

PETER HARDIE MCNAMARA AND PATRICK STURGEON MCNAMARA V MALCOLM J LUSBY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-002967

Citation

openlaw-ab7f30e3_169e_4606_a3c4_30a7d7fb2f8a.pdf
Court

High Court

Where a private certifier lacked authority to certify particular items and the TA knew or ought to have known of those limitations, the TA could not simply accept the certifier's CCC at face value for those items; the pleadings sufficiently alleged a duty to take reasonable steps to verify compliance and thus the strike out/summary judgment applications failed and must be dismissed.
28 Oct 2008

TE MATA PROPERTIES LIMITED, ROBERT WARWICK SIMPSON, TE MATA PROPERTIES LIMITED AND VILLAGE PROPERTIES LIMITED V THE HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL CA CA450/2007

Citation

openlaw-3b84e992_c7cd_4b3e_aa4a_f6a9bed0733d.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Hamlin duty is confined to private dwellings and cannot be extended to commercial premises such as motels for recovery of economic loss absent a pleaded health and safety based cause of action; the appellants' pleadings did not allege a distinct health/safety duty and amendment would not have cured the legal deficiency, so the appeal is dismissed.
30 May 2007

STRUTHERS V PATTERSON CO-PARTNERS ARCHITECTS LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2003-404-3232

Citation

openlaw-86336c3b_1914_4598_9246_b7f73b8b97a9.pdf
Court

High Court

Claims in negligence against the ninth defendant (Attorney-General/BIA) and against BRANZ (tenth defendant) are struck out because the statutory scheme, the regulatory/quasi-legislative character of the BIA's functions and the tenuous nexus between BRANZ and homeowners preclude imposing the alleged duties of care; Sacramento is binding and dispositive on proximity and policy issues. The plaintiffs' FTA claim against BRANZ is not sufficiently untenable to be struck out and may proceed with amendment.
25 May 2006

DUSTIN V WEATHERTIGHT HOMES RESOLUTION SERVICE & ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-00276

Citation

openlaw-ff568cf3_8328_4b21_87c2_0d9506fc6ee9.pdf
Court

High Court

The adjudicator's decision was not reviewable because he followed binding precedent (Cromwell Plumbing) and therefore committed no reviewable error; additionally the adjudicator does have jurisdiction under s 29(2) WHRS Act to determine liability between respondents even if one respondent is time‑barred. The court expressed obiter that s 91(2) Building Act 1991 does, properly construed, apply to claims for contribution but did not overturn binding precedent in the adjudicator's decision.
10 Nov 2005

FORD AND FORD V RYAN AND RYAN HC WN CIV-2005-485-845

Citation

openlaw-df069036_ef60_4191_a2fe_04a38e68c39b.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council's application to set aside the third party notice must be dismissed because the Council did not establish the Ryans' statutory breach claim was so clearly untenable that it could not possibly succeed; significant legal and factual questions (including whether s43 gives rise to a private law cause of action and causation) require substantive hearing and the Council should remain a third party.

New Zealand Case Law

NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL V BODY CORPORATE 189855 AND ANOR SC 28/2010

PROPERTY VENTURES INVESTMENTS LIMITED V REGALWOOD HOLDINGS LIMITED SC 85/2008

PETER HARDIE MCNAMARA AND PATRICK STURGEON MCNAMARA V MALCOLM J LUSBY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-002967

TE MATA PROPERTIES LIMITED, ROBERT WARWICK SIMPSON, TE MATA PROPERTIES LIMITED AND VILLAGE PROPERTIES LIMITED V THE HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL CA CA450/2007

STRUTHERS V PATTERSON CO-PARTNERS ARCHITECTS LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2003-404-3232

DUSTIN V WEATHERTIGHT HOMES RESOLUTION SERVICE & ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-00276

FORD AND FORD V RYAN AND RYAN HC WN CIV-2005-485-845