Legal Research
Cases
Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Limited v Wellington City Council

Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Limited v Wellington City Council

Case [2023] NZSC 38 21 April 2023

Appeal

Statutory Interpretation

Breach of Contract

Planning & Development Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 11/2023
[2023] NZSC 38

BETWEEN	BECA CARTER HOLLINGS & FERNER LIMITED Applicant
AND	WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	M G Ring KC and J A McKay for Applicant L J Taylor KC and B J Sanders for Respondent
Judgment:	21 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Limited v Wellington City Council [2022] NZCA 624).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to conclude that the Building Act longstop provisions do not apply to a contribution claim.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Auckland for Applicant
Darroch Forrest Lawyers, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Limited v Wellington City Council [2023] NZSC 38
Case: [2023] NZSC 38
Decision Date: 21 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Limited applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision that the Building Act’s longstop provisions do not apply to a contribution claim. The longstop provisions are a statutory limitation that prevents a claim being brought more than six years after the cause of action accrues. The Wellington City Council opposed the application, arguing that the Court of Appeal’s decision was correct and that the Supreme Court should not grant leave to appeal. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Building Act longstop provisions do not apply to a contribution claim. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal’s decision was wrong and that the longstop provisions do apply to a contribution claim. The Supreme Court found that the plain meaning of the statutory language supported this conclusion and that the Court of Appeal had erred in its interpretation of the Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the application of the Building Act longstop provisions to contribution claims and provides guidance to parties involved in building disputes.

Orders