New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Developer liability

Legal area

Court

19 Dec 2019

FARRELLY v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 3394

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3394
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise matters of sufficient public or party importance to outweigh delay and was not justified in the interests of justice; extensive discovery of GPE Holdings' and Mr Craig Stewart's financial/internal records was declined as disproportionate and unlikely to materially assist proof that Stewart was a developer absent evidence that the corporate arrangements were a sham; limited discovery as to Stratum Management and specified categories from 1 April 2005 was ordered; joinder of TWA Investments Ltd was granted because the plainti…
2 Aug 2019

FARRELLY v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL [2019] NZHC 1875

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1875
Court

High Court

Tailored discovery must be proportionate and relevance-filtered; plaintiffs were not entitled to blanket discovery of extensive financial and internal records absent credible basis to allege a sham or likelihood of relevant documents, but the court ordered discovery of specified narrower categories: (a) financial/internal records in paragraphs 8(s), 8(u) and 8(w) from 1 April 2005 onwards (excluding personal financial records of Craig Stewart or trusts for his benefit); (b) all documents relating to incorporation and involvement of Stratum Management (paragraph 8(f)); and (c) for documents co…
24 Mar 2016

KWAK & ANOR v PARK [2016] NZHC 530

Citation

[2016] NZHC 530
Court

High Court

Producer statements drafted and signed by the builder in order to obtain a code compliance certificate constituted 'building work' within the statutory definitions so the claim was not time barred; those producer statements created a sufficiently proximate duty of care to subsequent purchasers and were a substantial and material cause of the weathertightness damage, establishing negligence and liability for the full proven quantum of $737,286.80.
2 Oct 2013

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v JACQUELINE STALEY [2013] NZHC 2572

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2572
Court

High Court

The Tribunal applied the correct tenability test for joinder; the Council failed to point to tenable evidence that Lowes acted as project manager/supervisor or that Mr and Mrs Liggins were co-developers, and assertions and inspection contact records were insufficient to found joinder; therefore the Tribunal rightly declined to join those proposed respondents and the appeal is dismissed.
16 Aug 2012

BRICHRIS HOLDINGS LIMITED V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2011-404-7973

Citation

openlaw-524ab4a2_29a9_48cb_8e7a_acbf8b9042c0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Tribunal erred as a matter of law by characterising Brichris summarily as a residential property developer and removing Auckland Council; whether Brichris is a developer (and therefore outside the Council's duty) depends on factual findings whether the townhouses were developed in trade for the purpose of sale; the Tribunal's removal is set aside and the Council reinstated.
14 Jul 2010

LISTER AND ORS V 2 HARROGATE STREET LIMITED AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-001071

Citation

openlaw-fff94aee_38e1_4450_8777_281e66909f76.pdf
Court

High Court

Laidlaw v Parsonage binds the court: a nominee under a sale agreement obtains the benefit of the contract under s 4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982; the strike out application was correctly dismissed because the pleaded tort duty is novel and factually sensitive and cannot be said with certainty to be unsustainable without trial; the Associate Judge's decision is upheld.
10 Sept 2009

PETER HARDIE MCNAMARA AND PATRICK STURGEON MCNAMARA AS TRUSTEES OF THE P H MCNAMARA FAMILY TRUST V MALCOLM J LUSBY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-002967

Citation

openlaw-79179d1b_6b6c_4cab_8783_ef3b53b85cf6.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there is a genuine dispute of fact as to the extent of the eighteenth defendant's involvement and control over the project; inconsistencies in his evidence (eg his description as developer, drafting of a parapet detail, involvement in design/tiling decisions) meant he failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiffs' claim cannot succeed and the matter must proceed to trial with full evidence and discovery.
16 Jun 2009

PATEL V OFFORD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2009-404-301

Citation

openlaw-219aedc7_ec0d_4c4f_a99a_a3e4b3596e0e.pdf
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed. The court held the Adjudicator's apportionment was not unreasonable except in respect of the window joinery defect where appellant's share was reduced and the council's increased; the term 'developer' was unnecessary to the outcome; final overall apportionments fixed at appellant 50% and Auckland City Council 22%; appellate intervention is limited to cases where the first instance allocation is unreasonable under established authorities and s17 Law Reform Act 1936.
30 Mar 2009

BODY CORPORATE 183523 AND ANOR V TONY TAY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-4824

Citation

openlaw-e498f111_b2ee_4fad_903e_dfe5902a7148.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that the first defendant (Tony Tay & Associates Ltd) and the second defendant (Robin Sears/All Trades) were negligent in design and construction and are jointly and severally liable for remediation and consequential losses; the third defendant (Tony Tay) was not personally liable because his role was that of company director with limited direct involvement on site, he signed the Practical Completion Certificate in an administrative capacity for TTA relying on the building certifier, and no assumption of personal responsibility or causative reliance by plaintiffs was established…
9 Nov 2007

W YOUNG V RT HOLDEN AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-6989

Citation

openlaw-7432058a_5018_41d1_8c73_3bc2dc5569eb.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found on the undisputed evidence that Conrad, not the first defendant, was the developer; the first defendant did not assume personal responsibility or control of design or construction and therefore owed no personal duty of care; the plaintiff's Fair Trading Act claim is based on negligence rather than misleading conduct and is time-barred under s43(5); the 2003 settlement releasing Conrad likely discharges joint tortfeasors. Accordingly none of the plaintiff's causes of action against the first defendant could succeed and summary judgment under r136(2) was appropriate.