Despite
a last-ditch offer of an out of court settlement by Auckland City nervous that
the Supreme Court would rule against it in a leaky home case, the Supreme
Court issued its ruling regardless, saying it was in the public interest to
have a final judicial ruling on time limits for leaky home claims. This court ruling has increased the number of
homeowners who can potentially claim taxpayer-funded compensation for leaky
homes.
John Anthony Osborne
and Helen Osborne fought long and hard to get a definitive ruling on whether
they were entitled to seek compensation for their leaky home. They purchased a newly constructed home in
1997, finding shortly afterwards that it leaked. The court was told they decided to seek
compensation under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act. If eligible, they could recover part of their
repair costs from government and Auckland City – having to pay 25 per cent of
the repair costs themselves. To be
eligible, they had to bring their claim within ten years of the house being
built. Auckland City said they were out
of time: construction was sufficiently advanced that the house was habitable by
August 1996. They didn’t bring their claim
within ten years of that date. The
Supreme Court ruled that a house is not “built” merely when it is habitable; it
is “built” when Council issues a code compliance certificate. In the Osbornes’ case, the final certificate
was issued in April 1997 and they had claimed within ten years of that date.
After the Supreme
Court heard legal argument in November 2013 and before issuing its ruling in
June 2014, Auckland City attempted to suppress the case. The court was told Auckland City offered to
settle with the Osbornes on the condition that the Supreme Court did not
release its judgment. Litigants sensing
that a court may rule against them might seek suppression to avoid an adverse
result becoming public knowledge. The
Supreme Court said that even if litigants decide to discontinue an appeal, the
court has a discretion to still issue its ruling. The Supreme Court said it would have released
its judgment in this case even if there had been an agreed out of court
settlement and a formal abandonment by the Osbornes of their appeal. The legal point at issue affected homeowners
other than the Osbornes and it was in the public interest for the court ruling
to be made public.
Osborne
v. Auckland City – Supreme Court (10.06.14)
14.024