Homeowners with an earthquake damaged house had to pay wasted costs for two cancelled court events because their expert’s report was late: Alexander v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2020] NZHC 1660 [10 July 2020].

The High Court has held (Singh v Boutique Body Corporate Limited [2019] NZHC 1707 19/07/19) that members of a body corporate committee owe no duty to a member disgruntled at paying levies to repair weathertightness issues. 

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.