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…

Not above the law: options when faced with a sovereign citizen

As local councils across New Zealand carry out their statutory duties under the Building Act 2004, a growing challenge has emerged in the form of “sovereign citizens.” These individuals typically attempt to deny the legitimacy of government authority and may attempt to frustrate compliance processes—including by refusing entry to property, rejecting compliance action, or disputing…

The ADLS lease evolves – are you up to date?

In local government there is always a focus on optimising assets; particularly land, which is often the most financially and strategically significant asset held.  However, sometimes the significance of the asset is not fully reflected in the processes and documents used when dealing with it; although a challenge not unique to local government.  A prime…