23.07.2018

Leaking Buildings: A Council Class Action In The Making?

We are now on what may be called the “third wave leaky buildings”.

The first wave was the 1990s tide of leaking residential buildings, typically due to monolithic cladding installed without a cavity. In the 2000s came the second wave of leaking high rise residential and commercial buildings, particularly once the Supreme Court in Spencer on Byron concluded that the policies behind the Building Act 1991 did not justify distinguishing between duties of care owed by councils to owners of commercial versus residential property. Now we are well into the third wave, when repairs undertaken on defective buildings themselves fail and the buildings continue to leak or have other problems despite supposed compliance with the Building Act 2004 and the building code.

One response has been to recognise that it is not just faulty construction methodology that results in leaky buildings but potentially also the use of defective cladding products. Much attention has been paid to the fact that New Zealand imports a lot of the products that are used on buildings, including cladding components. The last 5 years have seen the beginning of actions (including class actions) against manufacturers and suppliers of cladding products.

This paper addresses, first, the potential liabilities of owners of buildings and others faced with a defective repair and includes discussion of some of the recent cases regarding allegedly substandard materials. We conclude by suggesting some practical ways to assist in ensuring (or at least raising the likelihood) that materials used in your construction (or remediation) project comply with the building code.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry_100x100 1
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
When Actual Delay Losses Exceed Liquidated Damages
14.11.2018 Posted in Construction Law
So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye…
When the employment relationship comes to an end, for whatever reason, there are still a few boxes to be ticked. So what needs to be done before you can bid each other a (hopefully) fond farewell?
5.11.2018 Posted in Employment Law
WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd: The Competent Contractor?
Defining health and safety duties in a contracting situation is rarely straightforward.
1.11.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Managing Partner Honoured with German Award
Erich Bachmann, the Managing Partner of Auckland based commercial law firm Hesketh Henry, has been awarded the Cross of the Order of Merit with Ribbon of the Federal Republic of Germany (Verdienstkreu...
30.10.2018
Building and Construction Law Journal
Construction partner, Nick Gillies, has been published in the latest Building and Construction Law Journal ((2018) 34 BCL 179).
18.10.2018 Posted in Construction Law
EBERT CONSTRUCTION: RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION
Introduction Following our Initial Note, the receivers of Ebert Construction Ltd (Ebert) released their first report on 1 October 2018.  Then, on 3 October 2018, Ebert put itself into liquidation, wi...
Pruning Back Liability: Do Contractual Arrangements Hold the Key?
The first defended hearing under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd, required the District Court to consider the ability of a business (a PCBU) to influe...
9.10.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.