New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leaky building litigation

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2020

ANDERSON v EUGENE JOHN DE MARCO [2020] NZHC 3490

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3490
Court

High Court

The Court held the plaintiffs could recover legal expenses as damages to the extent those expenses were not for work on these proceedings, allowed the plaintiffs' claimed legal expenditure subject to a $538.20 deduction and limited the award to the amount originally claimed ($38,313.46), directed that costs be assessed on the High Court scale under r14.13 given the circumstances, allowed the majority of expert fees and disbursements but disallowed specific items (subpoena service fee $195.50, filing fee $200, sealing charging order $100), and ordered the judgment not be executed pending deter…
29 Jan 2020

BODY CORPORATE 207624 v GRIMSHAW & CO [2020] NZHC 34

Citation

[2020] NZHC 34
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the Body Corporate's discovery application as insufficiently relevant and disproportionate: disclosure of Grimshaw & Co's other client distribution agreements and broad historic documents was unlikely to prove the pleaded negligence or causation; the interpleader pleadings/evidence and the body corporate's own records are the appropriate sources; instead the Body Corporate was ordered to file a further affidavit by 13 March 2020 identifying documents in its control and to make discovered documents available, with ongoing discovery obligations and leave reserved for further…
9 Dec 2015

JCS COST MANAGEMENT LTD v QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD [2015] NZCA 524 _x000b_

Citation

[2015] NZCA 524
Court

Court of Appeal

The majority held on summary judgment that defence costs are payable only where the claimant's notional successful claim would have been indemnified under the policy; the causative word "by" requires a causal nexus between the insured's Professional Business Practice and the notional liability, and here any notional liability would have been for pre‑purchase building appraisal advice outside the policy's definition of Professional Business Practice, so the Council's claim could never have been a Valid Claim and QBE was not liable for defence costs (appeal dismissed).
30 Nov 2015

LYKOV v WEI [2015] NZHC 3009

Citation

(2015) 17 NZCPR 166
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the Court found on credibility and factual assessment that the purchasers did not have actual knowledge of vendor breach before the agreement became unconditional and therefore did not waive or affirm the warranty; implied waiver cannot be extended beyond actual knowledge acquired before the unconditional date; alternatively, the appellants were unjustly enriched by settlement proceeds received in respect of remedial costs which were incurred by the respondents, so restitution and damages were available.
23 Sept 2013

BODY CORPORATE 303953 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2013] NZHC 2485

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2485
Court

High Court

The court refused retrospective reclassification to 3C and declined to award indemnity costs because the plaintiffs' conduct, while blameworthy for delays in providing particulars, did not amount to flagrant or exceptionally bad behaviour; however the plaintiffs had unreasonably contributed to additional costs and a 25% uplift over scale 2B was appropriate.
1 May 2013

BGC 1990 LIMITED V ASC ARCHITECTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2011-404-007076

Citation

openlaw-b7099d97_b246_4b28_a5bd_b2fcdb067fb2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Council was entitled to increased costs because it made clear written Calderbank invitations and the plaintiff unreasonably delayed discontinuance after the Council demonstrated the claim lacked merit; however an uplift of 75% was excessive given Court of Appeal guidance, so a 50% uplift on scale 2B costs is appropriate.
8 Mar 2012

BODY CORPORATE 318596 v MATHIS HC TAU CIV-2009-463-285

Citation

openlaw-0a8a92b1_5344_4a1c_9aad_9ed6ea71e211.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 89 of the Building Act 1991 does not extend immunity to employees of private building certifiers because they are not included in the statutory wording; therefore pleaded negligence claims against such employees are not clearly untenable and a strike-out is inappropriate, so the review is dismissed and the Associate Judge's decision stands.
20 May 2010

BODY CORPORATE 183059 V SOKOL LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-00140

Citation

openlaw-5d8eb4b5_d6b8_40d4_b278_61d98d1cb055.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave was granted for Mr Keith Williams, sole director and shareholder of Sokol Limited, to represent the company because the company lacked funds, the matter was not complex, Sokol had a real interest to be heard and permitting his appearance would not significantly impede the court process; leave was refused for an unrelated non-lawyer (Greg Bennett) to appear; no court intervention was required to restrain Mr Baker from acting for both the Body Corporate and BCAL because the risk of conflict was negligible, the committee had obtained independent legal advice and consented to dual represent…
19 Dec 2007

TRUSTEES OF THE FISHMAN FAMILY TRUST V TRUSTEES OF THE RIDGE FAMILY TRUST AND ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-004206

Citation

openlaw-d322d916_6019_413f_afd4_8abe269d1682.pdf
Court

High Court

The Registrar erred in requiring proof of an interest particular to the proceeding; an established newspaper with a genuine interest in the subject matter of leaky building litigation met the r66(9) threshold and was entitled to leave to inspect the pleadings, subject to conditions to ensure appropriate and balanced reporting.