Landmark ruling over leaky home

Hundreds may be able to have compensation bids reheard after Supreme Court decision on Osbornes’ case

Alawyer says hundreds of leaky-home owners could seek to overturn rejected compensation bids after a landmark Supreme Court decision. In a judgment released yesterday, the court clarified the start time for the 10-year period people have to make claims to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal.

It is now clear the time started when a code compliance certificate was issued by a local council, rather then when construction of the property ended.

Auckland couple John and Helen Osborne successfully argued for that at the Supreme Court, where they took their claim against Auckland Council.

Mrs Osborne said the house, which they still live in, was “an absolute nightmare” while it was leaking.

“I’m absolutely overwhelmed. I can’t believe we’ve finally had a yes. We’ve never had a yes in the seven years we’ve been trying to get compensation,” she told

The Osbornes’ lawyer, Tim Rainey, told Newstalk ZB the judgment meant there were potentially 369 claimants previously deemed ineligible who could push for a re-hearing.

There was no need to be sympa- thetic toward councils which could now have to settle on matters of admitted negligence when they previously hid behind a “procedural excuse”, Mr Rainey said. Home Owners and Buyers Association of NZ president John Gray said it was seeking legal advice over what action was available to home owners previously denied the chance to make a claim in the same circumstances as the Osbornes.

The decision would not help For more on the leaky buildings saga, go to:

tinyurl.com/ leakybuildings owners of homes built in the 1990s and early 2000s, he said, as they would be outside the 10-year period.

Mr Gray said the association would like to have legislation amended to make the time limit for claims 15 or 20 years.

The Osbornes’ trouble with their 1996 Remuera home began shortly after they bought it in April 1997. That month, and in February 1997, code compliance certificates were issued.

Failed attempts at repairs were carried out between July 1997 and 2002, and the Osbornes filed a claim with the tribunal in February 2007.

However, only matters related to later repairs were deemed by the tribunal as eligible for claims.

A year ago, the couple had spent $500,000 fully repairing their home, where they still live.

Previously the Osbornes had sought a judicial review of the tribunal decision but the High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision.

The Court of Appeal declined to hear the case, but last year the Supreme Court decided it would pick it up.

Its judgement said the Osbornes and the council reached a conditional settlement after the hearing, subject to the Supreme Court not releasing its decision.

But the court decided to make its judgment public because “the case raised questions of public importance”. The Osbornes and the council will have to go to the tribunal if they can’t reach another settlement.

The Supreme Court also ruled Auckland Council must pay the Osbornes $25,000 in costs.