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.
- Eligibility under weathertight homes resolution services act 2006
- Limitation periods and long-stop provisions
- Joinder/addition of owners to representative claims
- Statutory interpretation of ss 14, 18, 21, 26, 27, 37 and s 393 building act 2004
- Fair trading act 1986 claim against report-writer
- Negligence and code compliance certificates