New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Building consents

Legal area

Court

18 Aug 2023

BOULTON v CHRISTIE [2023] NZHC 2241

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2241
Court

High Court

Leave to issue third party notices was granted under r 4.4(2)(b) because the interests of justice required that the plaintiff's claims against the defendants and the defendants' contribution claims against the third parties, which substantially concerned the same issues (foundation and floor settlement and building consent matters), be resolved in a single trial; the defendants' delay was explained and outweighed by the risk of inconsistent findings and the efficiency of one trial, so prejudice to the plaintiff did not justify refusing leave.
11 May 2022

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 983 [10 May 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 983
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs did not obtain substantive success on their discovery application because the documents located and informally produced were either produced by or sent to the plaintiffs' contractors and related to the undisputed consent process; therefore costs follow the event and are awarded to Queenstown Lakes District Council on a 2B basis in the specified sum.
1 Apr 2022

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 658 [1 April 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 658
Court

High Court

QLDC conducted reasonable searches and demonstrated that the internal notes, memoranda or external reports about remedial works the plaintiffs alleged do not exist or have been produced or are publicly available; the 2015 tailored discovery order did not, on its terms, require QLDC to produce forward‑looking remedial documents and r8.19 was not engaged because there were no grounds to believe relevant undisclosed documents existed; accordingly no further discovery ordered.
11 Nov 2020

ANDERSON v DE MARCO [2020] NZHC 2979

Citation

(2020) 21 NZCPR 758
Court

High Court

The vendor made material misrepresentations by presenting a positive expert report and disclosures while omitting and distorting known significant weathertightness issues and prior remedial works; plaintiffs were induced and reasonably relied on those representations; the misrepresentations materially reduced the benefit of the contract entitling plaintiffs to cancel under s 37 CCLA; repair works undertaken required building consent so the contractual warranty was breached; plaintiffs entitled to compensation — interim judgment awarded $132,123 with further legal cost assessment to follow.
12 Dec 2019

BODY CORPORATE 368533 v NAPIER CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 3270

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3270
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's material slippage in serving expert evidence, the late and inaccessible documentary material, the consequent prejudice to defendants' experts' ability to prepare and confer (exacerbated by holiday periods and existing commitments), and the material increase in claimed quantum meant the defendants could not be properly ready for the May 2020 trial; accordingly, in the interests of justice the trial fixture was vacated and adjourned to commence 21 September 2020 for 10 weeks with a directions timetable and case management review.
20 Jun 2018

McINNESS v JONES [2018] NZHC 1499

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1499
Court

High Court

The court ordered limited tailored discovery proportionate to the issues: defendants must disclose the building consent applications and building consents for 161 Tamaki Drive (20A/20B) and 26 Selwyn Avenue to identify the developer and the scale of works; delivery dockets/invoices are not required unless plaintiffs elect within 10 working days to pursue a per-trip wrongful use charge, in which case defendants must obtain and disclose delivery dockets; budgeted costs and negotiation records with 18 Selwyn Avenue are not discoverable as they are peripheral and not necessary to fix wrongful use…
29 Mar 2018

BODY CORPORATE 166208 v YORK TRUSTEES LIMITED [2018] NZHC 593

Citation

[2018] NZHC 593
Court

High Court

The application for extension of time was refused because York failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for delay, did not establish a reasonably arguable defence or counterclaim to the Body Corporate's claim (in particular the unpaid special maintenance levy), and the payment into the defendant's solicitors' trust account rather than to the Body Corporate, together with York's conduct and history of delays, demonstrated inability or refusal to pay debts as they fall due; overall justice required refusal and listing of the liquidation claim for hearing undefended.
28 Aug 2015

WEAVER & ANDERSON v HML NOMINEES LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2080

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2080
Court

High Court

The Court found multiple causes combined to produce stone cladding failure (notably substitution of Miracryl for the specified Flexi‑Seal, incorrect mixing/application of Miracryl, and use of spot adhesion rather than full combed adhesive coverage). HML Nominees breached the vendor warranty because the works did not comply with the express building consent (Miracryl substituted for Flexi‑Seal) and is liable for stone remediation costs and part of general damages. The Council breached its duty in inspections and issuing code compliance certificates (failed to verify Flexi‑Seal system usage and…
10 May 2013

NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF SPORT LIMITED v MAJESTIC INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2762

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2762
Court

High Court

Relief against cancellation granted to NZIS because the alleged breaches were relatively minor, some were not established (notably building consent issues and liquor licence), landlord conduct and the disproportionate harm to NZIS favored relief; MIL had not proved an entitlement to immediately resist payment of the $200,000 fit‑out contribution such as to justify setting aside the statutory demand, but allowable set‑offs and unresolved disputes justified a conditional order requiring MIL to pay the contribution less agreed or adjudicated set‑offs, after which NZIS must execute the deed and M…
4 Feb 2013

THE INSURANCE COUNCIL OF NZ INCORPORATED V CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL HC CHCH CIV 2012-409-2444

Citation

openlaw-cfce2243_964d_4e6d_9c74_c839bc759fc9.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that 'danger' in s 124(1)(c)(i) encompasses both the definitions of dangerous and earthquake‑prone buildings; territorial authorities may not use s 124 notices to require an unconditional increase of a building's capacity above 34% NBS as a policy objective, but they may require work to reduce or remove specific vulnerabilities or risks where the building is under 34% NBS even if the works result in strengthening above 34% NBS; policy guidance endorsing 67% NBS is permissible as aspirational guidance but cannot be used to mandate strengthening beyond the statutory limit under s…