On 22 December 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of
the Court of Appeal and the High Court in finding that local
authorities cannot require building owners to strengthen buildings
so they exceed 33% of the new building standards (NBS).
Importantly, subject to insurance policy wording, this limits
the liability of insurance companies to upgrade damaged buildings
in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes. The decision also
has ramifications for building owners and local authorities
The Building Act 2004 (the "Act") governs performance
standards of buildings. This includes the performance of buildings
beyond 33% NBS during earthquakes. Buildings are considered
'earthquake prone' if the building is less than 33% of new
building standard ("NBS").
After the September 2010 earthquake, the Christchurch City
Council issued its Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary
Building Policy ("the EQ Policy"). This policy was
supported by the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering who
recommended that all existing buildings should be strengthened to
67% of NBS, well above the 33% minimum level.
Under section 124 of the Act, a local authority can issue a
notice requiring strengthening work to be carried out on a building
if the local authority is satisfied the building is dangerous,
earthquake-prone, or insanitary. The Christchurch City Council
("CCC") claimed this section also allowed them to require
buildings they considered were earthquake-prone to be strengthened
to 67% of NBS under a section 124 notice, based on the EQ
The EQ Policy had wide ranging implications for building owners,
tenants and insurers. Building owners had been seeking to pass on
the costs of complying with the EQ Policy to insurers, who are
often liable under the insurance policy for upgrades required by
statute or regulations arising out of repair work.
The issue came before the courts because the University of
Canterbury suffered significant damage during the earthquakes of
2010 and 2011. The CCC served a section 124 notice on the
University requiring it to upgrade its buildings to 67% of NBS. An
upgrade to this level would have cost $144 million more than the
amount required to upgrade to the minimum 33% of NBS.
The University argued that the CCC did have the power to serve a
section 124 notice to strengthen buildings to 67% of NBS and
accordingly that the University was covered under its insurance for
any costs required by law as part of its earthquake repairs.
The University's insurers, represented by the Insurance
Council of New Zealand, argued that the CCC did not have authority
to compel building owners to upgrade their buildings above the
minimum of 33% required by the Building Act. As such, the insurer
would not be liable for any costs required to make the building
stronger than the minimum standard required at law, under the
The Supreme Court confirmed the decisions made in the lower courts
and ruled in favour of the Insurance Council. The court stated that
a local authority's power is limited to requiring property
owners to upgrade their buildings to the minimum requirement of 33%
of NBS (i.e. the minimum level required for a building to be deemed
not earthquake prone). CCC's EQ Policy, which recommended
buildings achieve 67% of NBS, extended beyond what was legally
required under the Act and was thus invalid.
This is a logical decision, as the law was not intended to
enable a local authority to require a building at 32% of NBS be
strengthened to 67%; while requiring strengthening in respect of a
building at 34% of NBS.
The result was that the University of Canterbury could not claim
from its insurers the $144 million required to carry out the
additional strengthening as part of its earthquake repairs.
Impact on Building Owners and Insurers
This decision is positive for insurers but not so for building
owners, who cannot rely on insurance companies to pay for the
additional costs of upgrading buildings to 67% of NBS.
However, it does provide building owners with knowledge that
they are not required by the Act to upgrade their buildings above
the minimum 33% of NBS.
The power conferred by section 124 does not apply to buildings
that are not deemed earthquake prone, even if those buildings may
require new work or repairs. Neither does it apply to new buildings
or a new building replacing an old building that was demolished as
a result of the earthquake. All new buildings must be designed to
withstand earthquakes and fully comply with the current Building
Code requirements. An earthquake seismic rating under 100% is not
considered acceptable for any new building.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Be aware that most modern subdivisions now include land covenants which are registered against the titles.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).