The show must go on

The owners of a defective apartment building in Mt Maunganui thought they had the right to repair the building before their case went to trial.

The court, however, said the show must go on.

The owners had argued that they stood to lose substantial sums of money if a 10-week trial went ahead based on estimated repair costs rather than actual repair costs.

The owners sought leave to appeal the hearing date, seeking instead to delay their trial for more than two years until the repairs to their building had been completed and the final cost of repairs was known.

Acting for the council, Rice Speir argued against any delay.  The owners’ argument that they would lose substantial sums of money if the trial went ahead as scheduled was not supported by evidence.

“The court agreed that the owners’ argument was speculative and unpersuasive.”

They also argued they had a legal “right” to repair before trial.  The Court agreed with us that the owners’ argument was speculative and unpersuasive.

Take home points

Owners of a defective building do not have a “right” to repair before trial.  Attempts to delay a trial need to be scrutinised as it may not be in your best interests to wait for an outcome and there may not be persuasive reasons for delay.  Time is not a cheap commodity.

If you want to spend some of your valuable time reading the judgment, it is here: Body Corporate 417948 & Ors v Watts & Hughes Construction Limited & Ors.

Related news

High Court declines application for summary judgment against Council

A high-profile developer has had its application for summary judgment declined by the High Court. The developer sought summary judgment against Christchurch City Council (CCC) in respect of two fire design related defects that it said had caused significant loss.  The developer argued that the council had negligently processed and issued the building consent and…

Court rules against developer in resource consent fee dispute

Court rules against developer in resource consent fee dispute – and rejects negligence and breach of contract arguments Judge K G Davenport KC has sided with Tauranga City Council (TCC), granting summary judgment for $15,387.45 in unpaid resource consent fees and striking out the developer’s counterclaims against TCC for negligence, contract, and legitimate expectation. The…

Court of Appeal backs Council’s position on limitation and late knowledge

We recently reported on the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissing stale claims against councils.  In Rea v Auckland Council [2024] NZCA 313, the Court of Appeal continued this positive trend. Background In the Rea case, Auckland Council issued a CCC for a house in October 2013.  Mr and Mrs Rea purchased the…

Court of Appeal finds for council in pool fence dispute

In a win for councils nation-wide, in Tasman District Council v Buchanan, the Court of Appeal has overturned a decision relating to councils’ duty of care when inspecting residential swimming pools – holding that councils do not have a duty of care when carrying out pool inspections, and that the purpose of pool fencing legislation…