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

Do you really need a Fixed Term Agreement? Really really?
Most of us (and especially lawyers) like certainty.  Experience tells us however that there is nothing as uncertain as a sure thing.  Frequently, we speak to employers that are tempted to use fixed ...
28.11.2019 Posted in Employment Law
New National Interest Test Proposed for New Zealand’s Overseas Investment Rules
The New Zealand Government has recently announced yet more proposed changes to New Zealand’s overseas investment rules to be introduced early next year.
27.11.2019 Posted in Foreign Investment
ACP Cladding Update – Class Action Proposed
Media reports indicate that class action litigation in relation to ACP cladding is very likely.  A litigation funder has announced it will be funding a class action lawsuit for owners of buildings cl...
Complaints are on the rise: A snapshot of complaints made to the Commerce Commission
The Commerce Commission (Commission) has recently released a snapshot of the complaints it has received in the year to 30 June 2019.  A copy of the Commission’s report can be viewed here. The snaps...
25.11.2019 Posted in Regulatory
Unfair Contract Terms: High Court issues its first declaration
On 12 November 2019 the High Court issued its first declaration under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) that terms in a standard form consumer contract are unfair.[1]  The Commerce Commission (Commiss...
14.11.2019 Posted in Regulatory
Who is working when? Public holidays and ‘otherwise working days’
With Labour Day just around the corner, and Christmas/New Year looming, we are getting a few questions about the “otherwise working day”.
24.10.2019 Posted in Employment Law
A trust on a trust – how strange is that?
In New Zealand we are trust crazy and owning a home in trust is common place. For many, just as for Mr Hodgkinson in Judd v Hawkes Bay Trustee Company Limited [2016] NZCA 397, the trust has been set u...
21.10.2019 Posted in Trust Wills Estates
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.