11 October 2012

Leaky homes: "Byron Ave"


In a landmark ruling with huge costs for ratepayers, the Supreme Court has extended council liability for negligent building inspections to include commercial buildings.  The previous legal view was that council liability extended only to residential homes.
Changes to the building code in the 1990s coupled with poor construction techniques has resulted in an avalanche of legal claims for the cost of remedial work on leaky buildings.  Often, a local authority is the only solvent party left standing as property owners sue builders, sub-contractors and the local council for damages.  Potential council liability has arisen where a local authority acted as certifier, signing off code compliance certificates stating that the building does comply with the building code.
Councils have strongly resisted liability.  But a string of New Zealand cases over previous decades have established a rule that owners of residential houses can sue councils for negligence.
A novel question arose with a Takapuna leaky building, being a “mixed use” development: a 23 level building known as Spencer on Byron containing a hotel on the lower floors and residential apartments on the upper floors. 
North Shore City argued there were strong policy reasons to limit council liability to residential homeowners only: homeowners lacked the sophistication to look after their own interests; by contrast, owners of commercial properties were not so vulnerable.
The Supreme Court ruled there were no policy reasons to stop council liability being extended to cover “mixed-use” buildings and purely commercial buildings.  It said not all homeowners are naïve; the wealthy and commercially sophisticated also own homes.  And not all commercial property owners are sophisticated; a first time business owner purchasing a corner dairy in a country town may well lack any business experience.
North Shore City argued the extension of liability to commercial premises will transfer millions, if not billions, of dollars in repair costs from building owners to council ratepayers.  The Supreme Court said this argument overstates the position: ratepayers will pick up any residual liability, but before that councils with insurance cover for negligence will get compensation from their insurer and they will also be earning income in fees for ongoing building inspection work.
Body Corp. No. 207624 (Byron Ave) v. North Shore City – Supreme Court (11.10.12)
12.041