The High Court held a dispute resolution clause in a homeowners’ contract with their builder to build their house did not prevent them cancelling the contract when the builder left site due to non-payment of invoices.

Finds a wide variation in the standard of reporting, and calls for a licensing scheme. MBIE has shown no interest in reform so far.

The recent High Court decision holding Hawkins Construction liable to pay $13.4m plus GST to repair a leaky school[1] has been in the news, probably because of the size of the judgment (though it's not the biggest leaky building judgment) and that it is a school with a role of nearly 2000.

Can you sue the person who sells you their leaky house because before you bought they told you it wasn’t? The answer is: no, though it may depend on what court you end up in.

The High Court said yes: Mason v Magee [2017] NZHC 51.

The Court of Appeal said no: Magee v Mason [2017] NZCA 502

A recent High Court decision has confirmed that the ownership of an apartment as part of a unit title is not “all for one, one for all” when it comes to decision making.  The wishes of the majority can override the interests of a minority.

New Zealand appellate courts delivered significant judgments just before Xmas in the never-ending leaky building saga.

As of 1 March 2017, the amount claimable in the District Court will increase from $200,000 to $350,000 (The District Court Act 2016). 

The Construction Contracts Act 2002, a statute designed to ensure a cash flow on building projects, now applies to building professionals (e.g. engineers, architects, quantity surveyors), carrying out work for construction projects.