In the decision in Christchurch City Council v Attorney General & anor  2447 the High Court dismissed an application by the Christchurch City Council to set aside the decision about the eligibility of claimants to pursue a leaky home claim. The Court was not satisfied that the DBH had applied an incorrect test as to when the relevant house was built.
Recently I conducted a hearing for owners of a leaky home where the defendants had asked the High Court to strike out the claim by reason of delays in service of the court proceedings having affected their ability to cross claim and join third parties. The defendants alleged that by reason of the expiry of the 10 year limitation period under the Building Act they had been so prejudiced that justice was no longer achievable. In the decision in McConnel v Matthews & ors  NZHC 1819 Christiansen AJ dismissed the application. The defendants were unable to show prejudice and that they could not have brought cross claims and joined third parties. The proceedings were commenced within the 10 year limitation period and served within 12 months of filing.
Apparently EQC is now trying to avoid meeting its liabilities for earthquake damage by trying to identify damage to houses that allegedly arose from weathertight issues. Homeowners ought not accept EQC’s version of events and ought to engage a building surveyor to investigate the causes of damage. If damage is caused by earthquake, EQC is liable.