21 Dec 2020
The statutory demand was set aside because there was a clear, genuine and substantial dispute as to whether the debt was owing given defective or non-compliant works, outstanding remedial issues, withheld original completion documents and an arguable counterclaim; therefore s 290(4)(a) was satisfied.
10 Dec 2015
Relief from cancellation of the lease is granted as an indulgence subject to detailed conditions requiring completion of specified physical works within 60 working days of obtaining any required building consent, preparation and expert approval of risk management and water quality plans conforming to NZS 5826:2010, restriction on reopening the pools until those conditions (and Pool Safe application) are met, and a costs award in favour of the lessor reduced by 25% because the lessor's conduct contributed to the need for litigation; where experts cannot agree the parties may seek court assista…
23 Dec 2014
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the matters raised did not involve questions of law of public or general importance, there were no exceptional circumstances under s14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, the factual and legal issues (including fire safety classification) had been thoroughly considered and resolved by lower courts and the Department of Building and Housing, and new arguments (time bar and illegally obtained evidence) had not been previously raised or explored in evidence and therefore did not justify leave.
6 Nov 2014
The inspector was negligent for failing to check the works against the approved consented plans and for relying on unstamped preliminary plans; that negligence was a substantial and material cause of the plaintiffs' loss; the plaintiffs did not discover their cause of action until 2 April 2007 so the claim was not statute-barred; plaintiffs were not contributorily negligent nor did they fail to mitigate in a way that reduces liability; damages for demolition and rebuild, certain wasted costs and limited general damages were awarded.
10 Apr 2014
Gilgamesh Limited breached its non‑delegable duty by constructing the house with proven weathertightness defects; the Council was also negligent in failing to identify those defects during inspections but as a secondary wrongdoer. Under s17 Law Reform Act 1936 the Council is entitled to contribution from Gilgamesh; applying established precedents the Court apportions 85% of the settlement paid by the Council to Gilgamesh and awards contribution, interest and costs accordingly.
8 Mar 2013
The vendor did not owe a tortious duty of care as developer or head contractor; however the vendor breached clause 6.2(5)(b) because the completed works did not comply with the building consent insofar as conditions 14 (construction to NZS 3604:1999/joinery requirements) and 16 (finished floor levels) were not met; the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to assess quantum of damages and effects of post-agreement events on purchasers' rights.
16 Dec 2011
The director, GJ Joyce, was the effective project manager who assumed personal responsibility and control over the construction; his acts and omissions are directly linked to the weathertightness defects and he is therefore personally liable alongside Joyce Building Limited. Clause 6.2(5) is a personal vendor warranty and was breached by Joyce, who caused or permitted non‑compliant works to be done.
10 Nov 2008
The application for summary judgment was declined because there was evidence the builder had responsibility for siting the concrete slab (specification required contractor to perform setting out and builder prepared the plans and carried out preparatory works) and evidence that the slab was placed contrary to the building consent; therefore there was an arguable breach of contract and/or duty of care and the defendant could not show no basis existed for the plaintiff's causes of action.