New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Code compliance certificate

Legal area

Court

19 Jul 2023

EXCLUSIVE ESTATES LTD v HOFFMAN [2023] NZHC 1878

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1878
Court

High Court

Lang J concluded the Judge erred as the lower unit was consented and code compliant as a Minor Household Unit; there was no change of use after construction because the intended use was disclosed to Council in consents; nothing in the Building Act, regulations or planning instruments required occupants of an MHU to be connected to the principal household; therefore EEL did not breach s78A and no refund was due.
14 Mar 2023

BODY CORPORATE 422631 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 504

Citation

[2023] NZHC 504
Court

High Court

The Court granted particular discovery in part: plaintiffs must make targeted enquiries of Nigel McKenna and Michael Webb‑Speight and disclose any relevant hardcopy or electronic documents they control and must file a supplementary list of documents covering specified transactional and construction categories (d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j),(k),(l) as identified by QLDC; the Court refused broader orders to require searches of MKFSD, Melview and Peninsula absent specific evidential basis and declined to make an unless order; costs reserved.
10 Mar 2023

McKINLAY v WHITBURN [2023] NZHC 468

Citation

[2023] NZHC 468
Court

High Court

The 2016 settlement agreement displaced the conditionality in special condition 18 so the vendors had an unqualified contractual obligation to obtain the specified compliance documents within a reasonable time; a reasonable time has elapsed, the vendors are in breach and cannot rely on frustration or their own failures; summary judgment is granted for the Whitburns on liability, but specific performance and the purchasers' request to have the entire purchase monies held by the Registrar are not granted at summary judgment and remain for trial to determine remedies and quantification of damage…
13 Feb 2023

GOODMAN-JONES v HUGHEY [2023] NZHC 180

Citation

[2023] NZHC 180
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs failed to prove that the framing and cladding defects required removal and complete recladding or that the first or second defendants caused loss requiring such a remedy; PlaceMakers supplied framing in accordance with the quote (480 mm dwang centres) and that specification, together with construction tolerances and the Timspec system, met Building Code performance; builder was not negligent in failing to ensure 400 mm consented dwang spacing where plaintiffs had arranged supply and accepted the 480 mm specification; Council inspections were not shown to be negligent and a minor va…
1 Feb 2023

BUCHANAN AND MARSHALL v TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 53

Citation

[2023] NZHC 53
Court

High Court

The Court held the Council owed a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in its 2009 and 2012 pool inspections and breached that duty and was liable for negligent misstatements; s 10 FOSPA did not give rise to a separate private statutory cause of action; the Building Act s393 10-year long-stop barred the claim based on the 2009 inspection but not the 2012 inspection; plaintiffs proved loss caused by the lost opportunity to sue and were awarded damages and a declaration.
27 May 2022

TITTERTON v DYNASTY CAPITAL LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1202

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1202
Court

High Court

The purchaser established a reasonably arguable case that the vendor breached its obligation to pursue construction with reasonable diligence (including the arguably unjustified halt after the 3 June 2021 call and kitchen ordering delay) such that the vendor could not properly rely on the sunset clause to terminate; accordingly the caveat must be sustained pending resolution of the contractual dispute.
17 May 2022

NZ RAILWAYS STAFF WELFARE TRUST v TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1067

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1067
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities Paradise Coatings Ltd negligently installed the inter-storey junction and negligently prepared a Producer Statement which was misleading and relied on by the Council; the Council thereby became a concurrent tortfeasor and Paradise is liable to contribute 80% of the sums paid by the Council to the plaintiff for the inter-storey junction remediation and related losses, resulting in an award against Paradise of $170,212.60 plus 2B scale costs of $13,942.41.
4 May 2022

REA and v 360 DEGREES LIMITED [2022] NZHC 916

Citation

[2022] NZHC 916
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the plaintiffs' claim against Auckland Council because the claim was filed after both the six year primary limitation and the three year late knowledge period: the late knowledge date was at the latest 24 May 2016 (receipt of ACH/Maynard Marks reports) and the claim filed 9 Sep 2021 was therefore time-barred under s11 of the Limitation Act 2010.
7 Mar 2022

JOHNS v HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 379

Citation

[2022] NZHC 379
Court

High Court

The Court held that water ingress arose from multiple construction defects (notably parapet/cap flashing workmanship and details, rivet sealing, saddle flashings, deck membrane sequencing, balustrade fixings, window to cladding junctions and insufficient cavity ventilation). Hamilton City Council breached its duty in inspecting and in failing to require adequate consent details in several respects; Garth Davey breached duties as developer and supervising builder. Primary responsibility for roof-related defects lay with the roofing subcontractor (NLR) and supervising roofing contractor (Westga…
29 Nov 2021

LINEHAN v THAMES COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3234

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3234
Court

High Court

The Council breached duties only in relation to the balcony tiling (certification in 2011 and consenting in 2016 for direct-fixed tiles); other alleged 2011 breaches (cladding, seals, parapets, tanking, roofing, Z flashings) were not established; damages awarded are limited to a 50% share of quantified targeted repairs for balcony defects ($598,610 assessed; plaintiffs awarded $299,305), 50% of wasted 2016 remediation costs ($197,528 assessed; plaintiffs awarded $98,764), and 50% of general damages ($7,500), with interest at 5% per annum; plaintiffs' recoverable damages reduced by 50% for con…