On March 17th, I was a guest on The Resident Builder Podcast with Peter Wolfkamp on Newstalk ZB. We covered several topics, including developer’s access to neighbouring property.

The best idea for dealing with a worrying problem can be to sleep on it. But not for too long, and certainly not for over a decade. We recently acted in a High Court appeal involving a leaky home and the exceptionally long time its owners took to act on their problem.

On 2nd October I was a guest on The Resident Builder Podcast with Peter Wolfkamp on Newstalk ZB regarding a recent leaky building decision.

On 17 July I was a guest on The Resident Builder Podcast with Peter Wolfkamp on Newstalk ZB. We touched on the plasterboard shortage and other building supply issues.

On this week's edition of The Resident Builder podcast, building disputes expert, Mike Thornton joined Peter Wolfkamp.

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. 

Auckland lawyer Mike Thornton, a specialist in leaky building cases, says many people in the Browns’ predicament have sued Auckland Council for issuing a Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) for a defective building.

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.

I came across this broadcast where Ali Mau was joined by John Green, Director of Building Dispute Tribunal and BuildSafe, covering what you should do before getting a builder in for a renovation or build.

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.

The Supreme Court has dismissed an attempt by Carter Holt Harvey to strike out a case against it in respect of leaky schools allegedly arising from its negligent manufacture of cladding material.

A lifestyle block owner recovered from two insurers the costs of fighting a fire which spread from a burn heap on their Canterbury property to neighbouring properties.  The property was insured with AMI, and their landscaping business was insured with Lumley.

In a recent appeal from the District Court, the High Court has confirmed that unit-owners in Body Corporates cannot refuse to pay portions of the levies because they do not agree with the purpose for which levies have been struck.

The Court of Appeal held recently that the powers provided to a body corporate (under the Unit Titles Act 2010 (“the Act”)) to carry out repairs to a complex to the benefit of all owners, trump individual owners’ rights to choose how, when and whether they repair and maintain their units.

In Body Corporate 204299 & Sayer v Whyte & Ors [2016] NZHC 1164 the High Court held that where the division of property between private and common property in a body corporate complex are ‘skewed’ in favour of some owners, the court will not intervene to ameliorate its effect on other owners when the complex is being repaired, as to do so would disturb the contractual rights which the owners acquired when buying into a unit title development.