New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Eligibility under weathertight homes resolution services act 2006

Legal area

Court

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.
2 May 2013

AH LOO V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2012-404-7043

Citation

openlaw-282adb5d_5ade_45bb_b323_c7fa08eb9f60.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 120 cannot be used to transfer to the Tribunal a claim already declared ineligible under the Act's assessor process because the statutory scheme (in particular ss50 and 60) limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to eligible claims; alternatively, even if transfer were technically available, the discretion should not be exercised because prior ineligibility, delay, and the risk of abuse of process mean transfer is not in the best interests of justice.
30 Apr 2013

AUCKLAND COUNCIL V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT HC AK CIV 2012-404-5559

Citation

openlaw-b9549cd2_d3d9_47b3_970a_bb7bc78984ad.pdf
Court

High Court

Because Coleman's claim was properly brought under s 18 as a stand-alone complex representative claim and the statutory mechanisms in ss 26 and 27 were followed to add Bamford, no separate eligibility decision by the Chief Executive was required or made; addition was administrative so there was no reviewable decision and Bamford's claim was not time-barred by s 37/s 393 as it properly related back to the existing eligible claim; the Fair Trading Act claim against Apers failed for lack of evidential foundation of loss or misleading conduct.
7 Oct 2011

TURNER V ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV-2011-404-003968

Citation

openlaw-770992ab_5cec_4d5f_a17d_172a96fb6262.pdf
Court

High Court

The claim lodged by Mr and Mrs Peters was not an eligible claim because they were not owners for purposes of s14 and were not authorised to act for Peters Trustee Company Ltd; the Chief Executive erred in amending the claimant to PTC in 2009 because that substituted a new party and defeated the respondent's limitation defence. The proper approach to 'built' is that it refers to physical completion of the work required by the building consent; assessing habitation/final inspection dates is an acceptable practical method but the ownership error was dispositive.

New Zealand Case Law

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

AH LOO V AUCKLAND COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2012-404-7043

AUCKLAND COUNCIL V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT HC AK CIV 2012-404-5559

TURNER V ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV-2011-404-003968