2008 Decisions
Decisions made under the 2006 Act
24 Bath Street Ltd v Hulena Architects Ltd
TRI 2007-100-000067/DBH 04453
Decision (PDF, 18Kb) | Summary (PDF, 17Kb)
An order terminating the proceedings because the claimant was not the owner at the time the application was made and because there was a change of ownership after the transition date (1 April 2007)
Abyaneh v Auckland City Council
TRI 2007-100-000013/DBH 03783
Decision (PDF, 174Kb) | Summary (PDF, 24Kb)
Costs Decision (PDF, 21Kb) | Summary (PDF, 18Kb)
Burns v Argon Construction Ltd
TRI 2007-101-000012/DBH 02423
Decision (PDF, 42Kb) | Summary (PDF, 24Kb)
In this decision the Tribunal removed all the remaining respondents due to the limitation provisions in the Limitation Act 1950. This determination was appealed in the High Court. Click on the link below for the High Court's Appeal Decision
Costs Decision (PDF, 20Kb) | Summary (PDF, 17Kb)
Burns v Argon Construction Limited
High Court, Auckland: CIV 2008-404-07316
Decision (PDF, 2600Kb)
Derringer Trust v Upton
TRI 2007-101-000044/DBH 01242
Decision (PDF, 25Kb) | Summary (PDF, 16Kb)
This decision was appealed to the District Court but the appellant later withdrew their appeal
Dowling v Jacobsen Creative Surfaces Ltd
TRI 2007-100-000042/ DBH 05140
Decision (PDF, 33Kb) | Summary (PDF, 21Kb)
Costs Decision (PDF, 18Kb) | Summary (PDF, 20Kb)
Dowsett v Paul A Crosswell Ltd
TRI 2007-101-000045/DBH 04570
Decision (PDF, 25Kb) | Summary (PDF, 20Kb)
Easton v Mayers
TRI 2007-101-000003/DBH 00172
Decision (PDF, 298Kb) | Summary (PDF, 24Kb)
This decision was appealed in the Nelson District Court on the grounds that the Claimants did not comply with section 148 of the 2006 Act when they withdrew their claim under the former 2002 Act. The District Court however held hat the Eastons did comply with section 148 and therefore the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider and determine their claim as it did - click on the link below for the District Court decision
Mayers v Nelson City Council & Ors
District Court, Nelson: CIV 2008-042-00168
District Court Decision on Appeal [PDF - 61KB]
Lipschitz v Auckland City Council
TRI 2007-100-000039/DBH 03194
Decision (PDF, 13Kb) | Summary (PDF, 16Kb)
A Procedural Order whereby the Tribunal declined to remove certain respondents from the proceedings on the grounds of limitation. Those respondents then appealed against that decision in the High Court and in the alternative applied to have that decision judicially reviewed. The High Court held that the appellants did not have a right of appeal against the Tribunal's interlocutory determination as it did not finally determine a claim against those parties. Therefore the Tribunal's decision was only subject to judicial review rather than an appeal. Nevertheless the judicial review was unsuccessful because the date in which the time stops running is the date in which the claim was filed (ie the date when the claimants applied for an assessor's report) and not the date upon which an application for joinder was made, as was alleged by the appellants. Click on the link below for the High Court decision
Kells v Auckland City Council
High Court, Auckland: CIV 2008-404-001812, CIV 2008-404-002903
High Court Decision on Appeal/Judicial Review (PDF, 66Kb) | Summary (PDF, 28Kb)
Note: The claim in the Tribunal was later withdrawn as it was resolved by a confidential agreement between the parties
Manuel v Waitakere City Council
TRI 2007-100-000030/DBH 02405
Decision (PDF, 71Kb) | Summary (PDF, 24Kb)
This decision was appealed to the District Court but was resolved by a confidential agreement between the parties
Offord v Patel
TRI 2007-100-000038/DBH 02824
Decision (PDF, 90Kb) | Summary (PDF, 23Kb)
This decision was appealed to the Auckland High Court by Mr Patel (a respondent in the Tribunal's proceedings). Mr Patel did not dispute liability but challenged the Tribunal's finding that he was a "developer" and the contribution that he ought to make to co-defendants as a joint tortfeasor. The High Court dismissed Mr Patel's appeal. Click on the link below for the High Court decision
Patel v Auckland City Council
High Court, Auckland: CIV 2009-404-301
High Court Decision on Appeal [PDF - 60KB]
Peter and Tony Spooner Family Trust v Elle Cee Developments Ltd
TRI 2008-100-000019/DBH 03633
Decision (PDF, 27Kb) | Summary (PDF, 19Kb)
An order refusing to terminate the proceedings on the grounds of limitation because the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to reconsider or review eligibility once a claim has been declared eligible
Trustees Executors Ltd (trustee for the Simpson Family Trust) v Wellington City Council
TRI 2007-101-000029/DBH 00465
Decision (PDF, 125Kb) | Summary (PDF, 21Kb)
Costs Decision (PDF, 125Kb) | Summary (PDF, 22Kb)
These determinations were appealed to the Wellington High Court on the grounds that the Tribunal erred firstly, in not finding that the Council was negligent and secondly, in awarding costs against the claimants on the basis that they pursued claims that were without substantial merit. Apart from varying the category in which costs were awarded (ie from a 3C basis to a 2C basis under the District Court Rules), the Court dismissed both the appeal regarding the Council's liability and the appeal regarding costs. The Court also held that the defendants in this appeal were also entitled to costs regarding the appeal. Click on the link below for the High Court decision.
Trustees Executors Ltd v Wellington City Council
High Court, Wellington: CIV 2008-485-000739
High Court Decision on Appeal [PDF - 83KB]
