New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Code compliance

Legal area

Court

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.
10 Jul 2019

BODY CORPORATE 371455 v ASB BANK LTD [2019] NZHC 1606

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1606
Court

High Court

The Court approved the proposed scheme under s 74 because evidence established current or likely damage from water ingress, the scheme was sufficiently detailed, broadly supported by participating owners, apportioned costs equitably by utility interest, and was consistent with the Act and applicable precedent.
6 May 2019

BODY CORPORATE 401803 v NANDA & ORS (as listed in Schedule 1) [2019] NZHC 970

Citation

[2019] NZHC 970
Court

High Court

Applying the Tisch three-step test the Court was satisfied the Tremont property had suffered building defects amounting to damage, that the proposed scheme was appropriate and pragmatic (supported by unanimous EGM resolution, service with no opposition, and detailed proposals), and that the terms of the scheme as amended to clarify that "Repairs" include works required to ensure code compliance in the course of rectifying defects were proper and necessary; accordingly the Court ordered the amended proposed scheme settled under s 74.
31 Jul 2018

CHERYL SITARA SINGH v BODY CORPORATE 207650 [2018] NZHC 1932

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1932
Court

High Court

The levies were previously held lawful by the High Court under the approved remediation scheme; the appellant advanced no arguable defence to payment of those lawful levies and her counterclaims and separate proceedings against third parties do not provide a defence or equitable set-off sufficient to defeat summary judgment; accordingly summary judgment was correctly entered and is affirmed on appeal.
14 Dec 2017

BODY CORPORATE 328392 v KIM [2017] NZHC 3113

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3113
Court

High Court

The Court approved the s 74 scheme because it was satisfied on the evidence that significant remedial work was necessary, that a comprehensive scheme administered by the body corporate was the most efficient and practicable method, and that the scheme's terms (including levy allocation and authority to address unforeseen defects and achieve code compliance) were appropriate to restore value to the complex.
10 Dec 2015

F Byrne & C Byrne v Rose [2015] NZHC 3148

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3148
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to establish any tenable defence to actions on the two dishonoured cheques: evidence did not support total failure of consideration; alleged partial failures were not shown to be liquidated sums directly attributable to the invoiced amounts; duress was not established; GST overcharge did not justify stopping payment. Consequently summary judgment entered for plaintiffs for the face value of the two cheques with interest.
10 Oct 2014

JERARD v PAXTON PAXTON [2014] NZHC 2493

Citation

(2014) 15 NZCPR 906
Court

High Court

The Court found the second defendants breached warranties in cl 6.2(5)(a) and (b) by commencing preparatory works before obtaining consents and by constructing the house not in compliance with the building consent/Building Code; because the plaintiffs were unlikely to undertake the remedial works and would instead sell the property, damages were awarded on a diminution in value basis of NZD 290,000 (after set-off for other settlement funds) plus NZD 15,000 general damages for stress and inconvenience.
16 Apr 2013

HERITAGE HEIGHTS LIMITED V SINCLAIR BROS BUILDING LIMITED & Ors HC INV CIV-2009-425-000137

Citation

openlaw-e5e3610e_094d_4e58_9dd0_c0393b6a6f8b.pdf
Court

High Court

The individual defendants (Graham and Stephen Sinclair) were personally liable because each personally participated in and exercised control over the construction works such that they owed a duty of care; their negligent acts and omissions caused the defective work and foreseeable consequential losses (remedial costs, delayed-settlement bank interest, prosecution costs), and the company is contractually liable for remediation; misappropriations were proven against individual actors as determined.
25 Oct 2012

BODY CORPORATE 95035 V CHANG & ORS (NO 2) HC AK CIV-2011-404-002361

Citation

openlaw-870fb563_39fd_480f_acc8_b07da1ad66b3.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court settled and ordered the attached s48 scheme because the parties agreed the detailed terms following the Court's earlier decision; the scheme provides a lawful mechanism for conducting required Repairs, apportioning Costs, appointing a Scheme Committee and project manager, and levying and enforcing payment from owners, and the Court was satisfied the terms were appropriate to address the Notice to Fix and related remedial work.
24 Nov 2010

PACIFIC INDEPENDENT INSURANCE LTD V WEBBER AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-4168

Citation

openlaw-b1968b14_fe19_44c1_b4fa_3e556deb89d8.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was entered for the seventh and eighth defendants because the plaintiff did not actually rely on the inspection or producer statement and therefore there was no sufficient proximity or foreseeable reliance to give rise to a duty of care and no causal nexus for the plaintiff's loss; accordingly the plaintiff's negligence claim against the individual and the company could not succeed and the Council's cross-claims fell away as a consequence.