In a recent decision (Minister of Education & Ors v Carter Holt Harvey Limited [2014] NZHC 681 (4 April 2014) the High Court allowed leaky building claims against a manufacturer of a cladding system to continue to trial even though the claims related to buildings constructed ten years before the issue of proceedings. (PDF)

When one thinks of lawyers working from the imposing ridge of The Terrace in Wellington, or the teeming metropolis of Auckland’s Queen Street, sole practitioners are possibly not the type that immediately spring to mind. (PDF)

Late last year, the Supreme Court bought some Christmas cheer to the thousands of leaky home owners when it dismissed appeals by North Shore City Council against the decisions in Sunset Terraces/Byron Avenue in the High Court and Court of Appeal. 

The Department of Building and Housing recently provided additional information about the proposed government assistance package for leaky home owners (see attached). While the scheme will not be finalised until 2011, the announcement does clarify certain aspects of the scheme which impacts upon eligibility for it.

The Court of Appeal has emphatically rejected an attempt by territorial authorities to limit or reduce their ongoing exposure to leaky building claims. 

In the leaky building context, the personal liability of directors of development companies, continues to generate much jurisprudence.  A recent decision of Heath J held that where a director is found to have assumed responsibly for the way in which work is carried out on a building project and defects result, personal liability will likely follow.

The Sunset trial was lengthy, taking nearly six weeks of court time. The body corporate and four of the 17 individual home owners were successful. While the case was not a “win” overall for all of the home owners, it was a good outcome for other leaky home owners (PDF)

Civil litigators, in the Auckland High Court at least, will know of many leaky building cases dealing with multi-unit developments, a fact attested to by the frequent appearance of such proceedings in the daily Court list.  Such proceedings are a natural by-product of the leaky building phenomenon and, like most litigation, usually settle before trial.