New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Code compliance certificates

Legal area

Court

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.
29 Sept 2021

BATES v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 2558

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2558
Court

High Court

Court found Council breached its inspection duty by failing to detect/report that the consented proposed subfloor ventilation holes had not been installed and should not have issued a code compliance certificate on the evidence, but the plaintiff failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that those breaches materially caused the subfloor damage; O'Hagan did not breach its contractual duties (its scope was limited to timber replacement inspection and PS4) and plaintiff failed to prove causation as against O'Hagan; accordingly plaintiff's negligence claims failed.
29 Jul 2021

BODY CORPORATE 204299 v WHYTE & ORS [2021] NZHC 1942

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1942
Court

High Court

Because the reinstatement project was evidenced as complete by New Code Compliance Certificates, notices of completion were served on all affected parties in accordance with the Scheme, and no notices of opposition were filed within the Rule 7.24(1) timeframe, the court was satisfied to exercise its power under s 74(8) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 to discharge the Scheme.
27 Apr 2021

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 894

Citation

[2021] NZHC 894
Court

High Court

The Court granted the Council an extension of time to bring the review and ordered the plaintiffs to provide a further breakdown of the estimated remedial costs by category of work (aligned to the plaintiffs' supplied scope of works) by 31 July 2021; the Court held that at this advanced stage of litigation greater particularisation of estimated costs (by category) is required to inform the Council of its potential liability, while accepting precise apportionment by individual defect may be impractical and estimates are acceptable.
1 Aug 2018

BODY CORPORATE 207650 v SPECK & ORS [2018] NZHC 1952

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1952
Court

High Court

The Court granted the variation because it did not alter any significant aspect of the scheme, was necessary to enable the body corporate to issue levies given a consultant dispute preventing a final levy, was fair as between owners, and did not compromise the logic of the existing scheme; the committee was authorised to bring the application and substituted service was proper.
31 May 2017

BODY CORPORATE 348047 v WAN & ORS [2017] NZHC 1163

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1163
Court

High Court

The revised interrogatories met the rules governing interrogatories because they were specific, related to primary facts in issue, were not unduly burdensome, and were necessary to narrow factual disputes; Auckland Council was ordered to answer them via a senior officer (or officers) with authority and responsibility for ensuring truthful answers.
12 May 2017

BODY CORPORATE 207650 v KATY SPECK RYAN SPECK [2017] NZHC 966

Citation

(2017) 18 NZCPR 742
Court

High Court

The Court held that the sanctioned s 74 scheme must be interpreted broadly to include all remedial works necessary to bring the complex to a state of code compliance; the increased costs (including timber replacement error, intertenancy wall works, roof truss replacement, extensions of time and other variations) fell within that scope and therefore the body corporate had power to impose the second levy.
17 Feb 2016

Body Corporate 330324 v Auckland Council [2016] NZHC 192

Citation

[2016] NZHC 192
Court

High Court

Climatech was not permitted to file a cross-claim because the claim it sought to advance remained, in substance, a third-/fourth-party claim dependent on the assigned cause of action from WHL Ltd; joinder as a defendant did not convert that substance into a cross-claim between defendants, and the existing third-party pleadings and WHL Ltd's cross-claim sufficiently addressed issues of contribution and indemnity, so leave to file the proposed cross-claim was refused.
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…
28 May 2014

DAVIDSON & Ors v WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL & Anor [2014] NZHC 1162

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1162
Court

High Court

The Chair's decision was quashed because, on the facts, the correct "built" date for the leasehold apartments was when the whole building passed its final inspection prior to final CCCs (June 2002); the Chair erred by treating staged interim CCC dates for individual units as determinative, failing to account for the single building consent, the legal and financial interdependence of units and the incomplete and speculative factual basis relied on by the assessor and Chair.