New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Leaky buildings

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2015

BODY CORPORATE 331094 v MCMILLAN-ROURKE & ORS [2015] NZHC 3050

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3050
Court

High Court

The Court found sufficient building damage to justify a s74 scheme; the proposed scheme, supported by the vast majority of proprietors, properly balances common and private interests because private repairs charged to common funds deliver common benefits; limited departures from the UTA and body corporate rules are reasonable and necessary; therefore the draft scheme should be settled and approved.
19 Dec 2014

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL v DALLAS CA148/2014 [2014] NZCA 631

Citation

[2014] NZCA 631
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held Dallas breached s 9 Fair Trading Act by representing the kick outs were 'Completed by KRH Plumber' when they had not; a reasonable council would likely be misled by that statement, the Council proved reliance and causation (the misstatement was an effective cause of loss), and the High Court erred in dismissing the s 9 claim; the issue of apportionment of loss between the parties is to be determined (further submissions sought).
6 Dec 2013

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LTD [2013] NZHC 3258

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3258
Court

High Court

Application declined because no legitimate reason was demonstrated after amendment removed any common subject matter; any relevant material can be obtained via discovery in the related school proceeding; principle of open justice does not outweigh lack of relevance and legitimate purpose for access to abandoned pleadings.
20 Dec 2012

BODY CORPORATE 203710 V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL HC AK CIV-2006-404-7416

Citation

openlaw-499f7f35_4907_435b_bcd2_7cbcf9a5a167.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was entered for Building Code Consultants Limited because the Council could not establish the necessary element of reliance by the purchasers: contemporaneous documents and timing showed the purchaser of unit 1 did not rely on any alleged oral assurances and the purchasers of unit 14 were contractually bound before any alleged statements, so the Council's causes of action against BCCL could not succeed.
28 Sept 2011

AUCKLAND COUNCIL V RYANG HC AK CIV 2011-404-002570

Citation

openlaw-50343734_e19b_4fa2_aa9a_8607a74d93a4.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the known risk of leaky buildings and the susceptible materials used, it was negligent for the Council inspector to clear the cap flashings without checking compliance with applicable industry or proprietary standards or confirming conformity with the consented plans; similarly, tolerance of top-fixing of balustrades was negligent in the 2003 context. Accordingly the High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence against the Council.
31 May 2010

BODY CORPORATE 205055 & ORS V PRODESIGNERS ARCHITECTS LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV 2007-404-001625

Citation

openlaw-94ed51a4_b437_4805_8e5b_c19e34aa015b.pdf
Court

High Court

At the time the Council performed its functions the development was intended and known to be commercial serviced accommodation rather than private residential habitation; designation as 'apartments' was insufficient to bring the development within the Hamlin exception; the plaintiffs' losses are economic and outside the Hamlin exception and no tenable health-and-safety‑based duty was established; negligent misstatement failed for lack of reasonable reliance; summary judgment for the Council was appropriate and, alternatively, the claims were struck out.
22 Mar 2010

NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL V BODY CORPORATE 188529 AND ORS CA CA673/2008

Citation

openlaw-b76ebd65_87de_4e2e_a8a9_019c69282b21.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the Hamlin duty of care survives the Building Act 1991 and extends to apartment and multi-unit residential developments and to owners including subsequent owners and investors/assignees where the intended use was residential; territorial authorities owe a duty to take reasonable steps in granting building consents, performing inspections and issuing code compliance certificates and the LIM regime does not extinguish that duty; designers may be liable for negligently issuing false practical completion certificates when relied upon by purchasers; limitation and causation pri…
27 Nov 2008

KERIKERI VILLAGE TRUST V NICHOLAS AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-005110

Citation

openlaw-3c3ec27b_2d10_425c_9b26_e64f22ae4ef8.pdf
Court

High Court

On the pleaded facts the court concluded that a duty of care could not be imposed on the Council in favour of the Trust: analogous authority confines the Hamlin duty to domestic habitation or situations tied to public health risk; proximity and policy factors (lack of pleaded specific reliance, Trust not vulnerable, substantial burden on council, statutory scheme of Building Act 1991) weigh against extension; accordingly the claim against the Council discloses no reasonable cause of action and must be struck out.
28 Oct 2008

TE MATA PROPERTIES LIMITED, ROBERT WARWICK SIMPSON, TE MATA PROPERTIES LIMITED AND VILLAGE PROPERTIES LIMITED V THE HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL CA CA450/2007

Citation

openlaw-3b84e992_c7cd_4b3e_aa4a_f6a9bed0733d.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Hamlin duty is confined to private dwellings and cannot be extended to commercial premises such as motels for recovery of economic loss absent a pleaded health and safety based cause of action; the appellants' pleadings did not allege a distinct health/safety duty and amendment would not have cured the legal deficiency, so the appeal is dismissed.
3 Mar 2008

BODY CORPORATE NO. 85403 AND ORS V MAGILL AND ORS HC TAU CIV 2006-470-1065

Citation

openlaw-5ca88133_83bb_40c0_86d1_7407ff83bbbe.pdf
Court

High Court

The resolution dated 26 August 2006 is inequitable and is set aside to the extent it authorises the body corporate to fund litigation brought by individual unit owners for their personal unit claims; while the body corporate may fund litigation to recover damage to common property, it cannot legitimately fund owners' separate personal claims, and the Court exercises its discretion to grant relief under s43 accordingly.