Two more years to tango

Court of Appeal confirms Building Act longstop won’t preclude contribution claims

While some of us were getting ready for the summer holidays, the Court of Appeal quietly dropped its judgment in Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd v Wellington City Council [2022] NZCA 624, confirming that contribution claims are not precluded by the 10-year limitation longstop for claims under Building Act 2004.  Instead, the 2-year limitation period for contribution claims under the Limitation Act 2010 will apply, even if that falls more than 10-years after the building work is done.  This decision provides some much needed breathing room for defendants facing defective building claims brought near the end of the long-stop period.

Beca was an appeal from BNZ Branch Properties Limited v Wellington City Council [2021] NZHC 1058, which we previously wrote about here.  In brief, BNZ was an unsuccessful strike-out application by Beca against a contribution claim brought by Wellington City Council against Beca under the Law Reform Act 1936.  The claim was brought in 2019 for Beca’s actions related to building work in 2007 and 2008 (i.e. over ten years later) and Beca argued the Council was too late to join it.  WCC argued that the relevant limitation period was actually s 34 of the Limitation Act 2010 (rather than s 393 of the Building Act 2004), which allows defendants to seek contribution from other liable parties up to two years after the claim against them is quantified, whether by judgment against them or through settlement.

Clark J in the High Court dismissed Beca’s strike-out after carefully considering the legislative history and existing case law.  Clark J found that the specific limitation period for contribution claims took precedent over the more general longstop limitation for claims related to building work.  Her Honour noted that the exclusion of contribution claims from the 10-year Building Act long-stop was consistent with the way contribution claims are not precluded by the 15-year long-stop period for other civil claims.

While BNZ was a departure from a line of previously established High Court authority, the Court of Appeal in Beca emphasised that this approach to the interplay of the two different limitation periods is in line with a long standing recognition of the bespoke nature of contribution claims.  A contribution claim is not based on when the original wrongdoing occurred, but comes into existence on the date that a jointly liable wrongdoer is “enriched” by not bearing their fair share of liability.  That date is when liability is quantified through a judgment or settlement.

It is likely that the Beca decision will be appealed.  However, in the absence of a Supreme Court decision finding the other way, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Beca provides some relief and certainty for defendants in defective building claims which have been relying on the BNZ to seek contribution from other parties outside of the 10-year limitation period.

 

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…