Council inspections of home swimming pools are intended to protect young children’s safety, not to maintain market value of a home ruled the Court of Appeal, overturning a $270,000 damages award against Tasman District Council after it was sued by former Nelson City CEO Keith Marshall.
In 2006, Mr Marshall’s family trust purchased an award-winning home on a 2.9 hectare lifestyle block on Eight Eight Valley Road at Wakefield. It includes a swimming pool in a courtyard between two of the buildings.
Over the next six years, Tasman District made two inspections of the pool as required by the then Fencing of Swimming Pools Act to ensure safety barriers and lockable gates were in place. Pool safety rules are now in the Building Act.
The pool passed these two inspections.
The Trust was surprised to fail a subsequent pool inspection in 2019, an inspection triggered by real estate advertisements offering the Wakefield property for sale. The property was then withdrawn from sale.
The Court of Appeal ruled that while the previous pool inspections were inadequate and that Tasman District had been negligent, Council was not liable for any reduction in the property’s value resulting from the failed certification.
The purpose of pool inspections is to ensure safety of young children, not to protect the economic interest of property owners, the Court ruled. No duty of care is owed to property owners.
Homeowners are the ones whose conduct is regulated; homeowners are not intended beneficiaries of the rules.
The Court left open the potential possibility of parents suing a local authority for mental or emotional distress, should a young family member drown because of a council’s failure to identify non-compliant pool fencing.
Tasman District v. Buchanan – Court of Appeal (26.04.24)
24.104