Time waits for no-one

Time waits for no-one
Wednesday 13 July, 2022
In 2021, Auckland Council was sued for negligence in its role as building consent authority in relation to a building with various defects. The relevant acts (building consent and code compliance certificate (CCC)) had taken place in 2012 and 2013.
The Council brought an application to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 2010. In general, a claim needs to be made within six years of the relevant act (primary period). However, if the plaintiff did not have knowledge of the negligence at the time the claim arose, they will have three years from the date that they discovered (or should have discovered) the basic facts giving rise to the claim, including that the negligent act or omission had occurred and that it would cause the plaintiff loss (late knowledge period). The late knowledge period is subject to the 10-year-long stop under the Building Act 2004.
The key dates were:
- 12 December 2012: Auckland Council issues building consent
- 18 October 2013: CCC issued.
- 11 February 2014: plaintiffs purchase property.
- 10 March 2016: First consultant issues report identifying 31 internal, external, structural and other defects.
- 24 May 2016: Second consultant does a structural review of the property and issues a report detailing five weathertightness and structural defects.
- 19 May 2019: Third consultant issues report recording structural defects and workmanship issues.
- 9 September 2021: plaintiffs file proceeding.
The Court found that the proceedings were filed outside of the “primary period” of six years from the last allegedly negligent act of Council (being the issuing of the CCC).
The Court then considered whether the proceedings were filed within the “late knowledge period” of three years from the “late knowledge date.”.
The Court considered all the facts and concluded that upon receipt of the second consultant’s report, the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of the defects and the economic loss resulting from them (through the reduced value of the house due to the defects). The claim was therefore filed after the late knowledge period had expired and the claim was struck out. If the Building Act long-stop was the only relevant limitation period, the claim would have been filed in time.
Lessons for councils
We have experience acting for Councils both as plaintiffs and as defendants in proceedings involving allegations of defective construction. Often damage will not be identifiable for some time after a project is completed, at which point further investigations will be needed. It is important to make sure that potential time-bar issues are identified and dealt with quickly once a problem is discovered as there may be issues bringing a claim after the six years of the relevant act. Similarly, it is important to consider the full factual background if a claim is made to see whether the claim is in time.
If you have any questions relating to this article, please get in touch with one of our experts below.
Talk to one of our experts
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

Director personal liability more acute as tough times bite business
Tuesday 14 February, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

How can you identify the subject of an anonymous defamatory statement?
Thursday 10 October, 2019

Australian defamation decision raises risk for public Facebook pages
Wednesday 31 July, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

Court of Appeal recognises new public interest defence to defamation claims
Thursday 27 September, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018
