Edmonds Judd

building code

Can losses be recovered from a faulty building?

Commercial, Property, Your Own Business
0

Design professionals can rely on limited liability clauses

The High Court recently found that the construction and insurance sectors can rely upon limited liability clauses when defending claims for negligence or breach of contract in commercial projects.

 

Background

In 2018, the Tauranga City Council (TCC) decided to build a nine-storey car parking building with 550 car parks on land it owned in central Tauranga. However, it ended up selling the land with a partially completed car parking building two years later for $1.

The TCC used a consulting engineering firm to design the car parking building; it engaged a second firm of engineers to check the design. Construction of the building began in June 2018.

 

The failed construction process

In March 2019, when the building was 20 metres high, a steel beam twisted while concrete was being poured. A third firm of engineers reviewed the building’s structural design. The firm’s initial conclusion was that the foundations, including the basement walls, were inadequate and that 300 tonnes of reinforcing steel and 140 truckloads of concrete were needed to strengthen them.

Construction was paused while a detailed design was prepared for the required remedial work. In June 2020, the TCC abandoned the project after receiving advice that it would cost: $26.5 million to demolish the building, $55.4 million to strengthen it and $64.4 million to rebuild it completely.

 

The court case

The TCC subsequently sold the land and building for $1 and filed legal proceedings in the High Court against the two engineering firms involved in the original design of the building. The TCC sought to recover losses of more than $20 million.

 

Limitation clauses

The TCC’s contracts with both engineering firms contained limited liability clauses seeking to cap the engineers’ liability to the TCC for any faulty design work at a set figure. A key issue in the case was whether the contractual limitation clauses were legally effective. This precise issue had not been previously considered by the New Zealand courts.

There is no general legal rule that prevents parties from agreeing to limit or exclude liability for a breach of contract. However, the court needed to consider the impact of section 17 of the Building Act 2004. Section 17 states that all building work must comply with the Building Code regardless of whether a building consent is required.

The TCC’s lawyers argued that the clauses limiting the engineers’ liability amounted to an attempt by the engineers to contract out of the duty to do all building work so that it complied with the Building Code.

‘Building work’ includes the design work done by engineers. They claimed this meant that the clauses were unlawful and unenforceable.

The court held, however, that the clauses did not attempt to avoid the duty to comply with the Building Code; they merely limited the consequences of failing to do so.[1] This means that it is possible for anyone involved in the building industry to contractually limit their liability, but not exclude it entirely.

 

Fair Trading Act claim

The TCC also brought a claim against the engineers under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA). The TCC argued that the engineers’ incorrect design advice amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct, breaching the FTA. This type of claim could only be brought against those who provide advice, not those who do physical building work.

Claims under the FTA can be a powerful tool for parties that have suffered losses, as the general rule is that parties cannot contract out of liability under this legislation. However, the court may uphold a clause that seeks to limit or exclude liability for a breach of the FTA between commercial parties under section 5D if it considers that the clause is fair and reasonable.

The court will consider matters such as the contract’s value and the parties’ respective bargaining powers when deciding whether a particular term is fair and reasonable.

In this particular case, the court decided that the clauses in the contracts with the TCC seeking to limit the engineers’ liability were fair and reasonable, and thus enforceable.

Section 5D only applies to contracts between commercial parties. This means that it will not usually be possible for a designer to contract out of liability under the FTA for residential building work.

 

What to do?

Design professionals can limit their liability for defective design work if commissioned for commercial construction work. Your organisation cannot rely on recovering any losses caused by faulty design. This means that you need to be careful to choose a reputable design professional. It also means that it may be worthwhile having design work peer-reviewed for substantial projects.

[1] Tauranga City Council v. Harrison Grierson Holdings Ltd [2024] NZHC 714.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Property briefs

House, Property
0

Victims of domestic violence can terminate tenancies

Changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) came into force on 11 August 2021 allowing a tenant to terminate their fixed term or periodic tenancy if they are the victim of a domestic violence incident.

Domestic violence under the RTA has the same definition contained in section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and includes physical, sexual and psychological abuse.

If your tenant is a victim of domestic violence, they may exit from their tenancy agreement by giving you (the landlord) two days’ notice. Your tenant needs to provide you with evidence of the domestic violence. It is important that when you receive notice from a tenant in this situation that you treat this with confidentiality and sensitivity, and meet your obligations under the Privacy Act 2020.

If your tenant is part of a group tenancy situation, they must notify the other tenants within two days after the date the tenancy expires. The remaining tenants are entitled to a two-week rent reduction that is calculated using the formula in section 56B of the RTA.

We can help you navigate the process if your tenant gives you notice to terminate the tenancy after a domestic violence incident.

 

Body corporate rules beefed up

The Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2022 became law on 9 May 2022.

The purpose of the amendments is to:

  1. Improve the information which sellers must provide to buyers of unit title properties. To help sellers in providing information, bodies corporate now have a duty to retain records and make information available to owners for the purpose of disclosure
  2. Strengthen the governance arrangements for bodies corporate, which include expressly permitting committee members to attend a body corporate meeting by audio or audiovisual link, specifying that a quorum is met if owners holding 25% or more of the principal units are present (provided that, where there are two or more owners there is a minimum of two owners present for each meeting) and allowing committee members to vote electronically
  3. Increase the professionalism and standards of body corporate managers by introducing a mandatory code of conduct, and
  4. Ensure long-term maintenance planning and funding is adequate, and provide the ability to establish separate utility interests for different expenses. For example, if there are two units in a single storey development and one unit has twice the ground coverage of the other unit, then a separate utility interest could be established so the bigger unit pays for two thirds of the roofing costs.

The changes will come into effect on 9 May 2024 unless an Order in Council is issued to bring some of the changes in earlier.

 

Buying a property with unconsented works

Building work must meet the standards set out in the Building Act 2004 and the building code. Under the current system, there is a two-step process to have your proposed building work consented and signed off:

  1. You must apply to your local council for building consent, and
  2. The consenting council must inspect the work in order to issue a code of compliance certificate (CCC) confirming that the work has been completed in compliance with the building code.

If you fail to obtain the proper consent and the CCC then your building work is unconsented which leads to significant issues when you come to sell your property. Some banks will not lend to buyers of properties that have unconsented work.

What is most important is to check with your insurer to confirm you can get insurance cover before you sign the agreement. A condition of most, if not all, mortgages is that you keep the property fully insured. If your home has unconsented works, some insurance policies will not cover the unconsented area and some will not cover any damage where, for example, a fire originates in the unconsented area, even if the fire spreads to a consented area. In extreme cases, unconsented works could void your cover entirely.

For some situations, there is a process available to obtain a certificate of acceptance which is the council signing off on your unconsented building work. The process to obtain such a certificate changes from council to council. It may also not be available if too much time has elapsed.

It is important to do your due diligence, so you know what you are buying before you sign the agreement.

If you need any guidance on this, please talk with us.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650