Search

Note: The decisions in this Determination were confirmed on appeal to the High Court. See: Davidson v Palmerston North City Council (High Court, Palmerston North, 30 May 2008, CIV-2006-085-1462).

Appeal judgment [PDF 100 KB]

This determination concerns a notice to fix issued for a failure to supply a building warrant of fitness in contravention of section 108 of the Building Act. 

The determination considers the form and content of the notice to fix, and whether the building is being used wholly as a single household unit and so would not require a compliance schedule.

Discussed definition of a ‘building’ under section 9 and the meaning of ‘intended to be occupied’ in relation to an NUO (network utility operator). Also discussed the definition of a specified system in relation to smoke detectors connected to security systems, and the meaning of ‘contribute to the proper functioning of the building’ and ‘functional requirement’ in section 7.

Note: The decision in this determination was confirmed on appeal to the District Court. See Ford v Auckland Council [2020] NZDC 22162.

Read the appeal judgment.

This determination considers whether the owner of a cable car built in 2000 (servicing the owner’s house) was required to obtain a compliance schedule for the cable car, given there was no such requirement when the cable car was built. The determination also considers how to interpret the requirement for the compliance schedule to include performance standards for the cable car. 

N/A