New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building act s393

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2018

TARANAKI GALVANISERS LTD v UDDERFIELD LTD & ORS [2018] NZCA 297

Citation

[2018] NZCA 297
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the presumption under r 15.23 was not displaced: the discontinuing plaintiff (Udderfield) must pay the defendant's (Taranaki Galvanisers) High Court costs because Udderfield sued an entity that did not do the work and the proceedings were time-barred under Building Act s 393; the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretionary apportionment regarding third party costs and left those orders unchanged.
30 Nov 2015

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v MINISTER OF EDUCATION [2015] NZSC 182

Citation

[2015] NZSC 182
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct that negligence claims were arguable, negligent misstatement claims were not arguable, and that section 393 of the Building Act 2004 did not apply to the claims.
12 May 2015

BODY CORPORATE 330324 "CITY GARDENS APARTMENTS" v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 995

Citation

[2015] NZHC 995
Court

High Court

A cross-claim by a defendant against an existing co-defendant, brought contingently prior to judgment, is not a separate "civil proceeding relating to building work" caught by the Building Act 2004 s393 long-stop; therefore Downer was granted leave to file cross-claims against Auckland City Council and TAL to preserve entitlement to seek contribution under s17 Law Reform Act, and limitation issues remain between the plaintiffs and defendants rather than between defendants inter se.

New Zealand Case Law

TARANAKI GALVANISERS LTD v UDDERFIELD LTD & ORS [2018] NZCA 297

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED v MINISTER OF EDUCATION [2015] NZSC 182

BODY CORPORATE 330324 "CITY GARDENS APARTMENTS" v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 995