AFS and AFT v ZUD and ZUE [2013] NZDT 348 (2 July 2013) [pdf, 104 KB]
...all the other possible causes at the hearing, he stated that a failure of the waterproofing was probably, although not certainly, the cause. For these reasons, the weight of evidence established that it was probably an inadequate waterproofing job that was to blame. [29] I have also had regard to ZUE’s view that the warranty in cl 6.2(5)(d) should be viewed as being satisfied so long as all Council processes have been satisfied. In this case, the Council had “signed off”...