Supreme Court Grants Leave to Appeal Question on s37 Weathertight Homes Resolution Act 2006
In a judgment on 3 August 20161, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether, in terms of s37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’s report “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the respondent. The case concerned construction of Ms Lee’s house, which presented latent weathertightness defects in February 2008 including leaking. Ms Lee initiated proceedings in May 2014 against the local Council, alleging negligent inspections throughout the construction process. However, summary judgment was granted against Ms Lee on the basis that her claim was governed by s4(1)(a) of the
Building Act 2004, and was therefore out of time. The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Lee’s appeal2, however, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in part, to determine the question of whether in terms of s37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’s report “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the Council. If Ms Lee’s assertion is found to be correct, her claim may not have been out of time under the Limitation Act as determined by the High Court. References:
1 Lee v Whangarei District Council [2016] NZSC 98 2 Lee v Whangarei District Council [2016] NZCA 258
MEDIA RELEASE
CARTER HOLT HARVEY LTD v MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ORS (SC 93/2015) [2016] NZSC 95
- PRESS SUMMARY
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court's judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at Judicial Decisions of Public Interest www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.
The appellant, Carter Holt Harvey Limited (CHH), manufactures cladding sheets and cladding systems that have been installed in schools throughout New Zealand that are owned or administered by one or more of the respondents. The cladding sheet product is known as "Shadowclad". The respondents say that a large number of school buildings have been affected by weathertightness issues and allege that these problems have arisen because the cladding sheets and cladding systems supplied by CHH are defective. The respondents brought five causes of action against CHH, including claims in negligence, negligent failure to warn and negligent misstatement.
CHH applied to the High Court for an order striking out a number of the causes of action. Asher J in the High Court declined the application, ruling that all claims should go to trial. CHH appealed