Keith Marshall, former CEO of Nelson City Council, sued Tasman District recovering some $270,000 damages for negligent pool inspections of his award-winning home on Eight Eight Valley Road at Wakefield. More than ten years after issuing a code compliance certificate for the pool and also making subsequent inspections, Tasman District changed its mind in 2019 saying pool fencing was non-compliant when the property was put up for sale.
Residential swimming pools are regulated under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. To prevent drownings, pools must be adequately fenced to block access by young children. Councils are required to inspect pools every three years.
Keith Marshall and Louise Buchanan purchased their 2.9 hectare lifestyle block at Eight Eight Valley in 2008 for $780,000. They pulled the property from sale in 2019 after Tasman District advised gates to pool surrounds did not comply. There had been no alterations since the original compliance certificate was issued back in 2006.
In the High Court, Justice Palmer ruled Tasman District liable in negligence for failing to carry out proper pool inspections. Determining damages; what was the market value of Eighty Eight Valley in 2008 if it was then known that pool fencing was non-compliant? Tasman District said market value would be about five per cent less; the property would be less desirable to families with young children. The valuer acting for Ms Buchanan and Mr Marshall said the remediation work required had the effect of ‘butchering’ what was an award-winning home. Justice Palmer ruled the market value as at time of purchase in 2008 was $195,000 less than the $780,000 paid.
Tasman District was also ordered to pay about $50,000 for costs of remediation which included lengthy negotiations with Tasman District. General damages of $25,000 were added for distress and humiliation caused by the dispute. Mr Marshall told the court publicity about the pool dispute would likely hinder any possibility of future employment as chief executive of a local authority.
Buchanan v. Tasman District Council – High Court (1.02.23)
23.018