--- title: "Construction & Leaky Building | Wakatipu Chambers — Queenstown Barristers" description: "Weathertightness and construction defect claims — the WHRS assessment and Tribunal pathway, the parties who belong in the claim, and the ten-year Building Act longstop that decides whether there is a claim at all." url: https://barristers.net.nz/services/construction-leaky-building/ --- # A pathway for the claim. A deadline that won't move. > Weathertightness and construction defect claims — the WHRS assessment and Tribunal pathway, the parties who belong in the claim, and the ten-year Building Act longstop that decides whether there is a claim at all. We take construction and weathertightness instructions across New Zealand from Wakatipu Chambers in Queenstown — WHRS claims and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, construction contract disputes, Building Act longstop advice, and multi-party defect litigation for owners and for parties joined to claims. ## We know these claims from every seat. Weathertightness litigation has been part of Brett Harris's civil practice for years — acting for owners bringing claims and for parties joined into them, in the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and the courts. That both-sides experience matters in multi-party litigation: knowing how councils, builders and their insurers each run their corner is how an owner's claim, or a joined party's defence, gets positioned realistically. ### The WHRS pathway Leaky-home claims have their own statutory track. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 gives eligible owners a government-funded assessor's report — establishing what is wrong, what caused it and what repair will cost — before any adversarial step is taken. That report is the foundation of everything that follows. From there the owner chooses the forum: the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, a specialist body built for these disputes, or the ordinary courts. For most residential claims the Tribunal is the right call — quicker and less formal than court, able to join every responsible party into one proceeding, with determinations enforceable like judgments. Larger or multi-unit matters sometimes belong in the High Court. The claim itself is bigger than the repair bill: remediation costs on the methodology the evidence supports, alternative accommodation, expert and consenting costs, and general damages for stress and inconvenience in appropriate cases — tempered by betterment and by what the respondents can actually pay. - Funded assessor's report under the WHRS Act 2006 - Tribunal or courts — the owner chooses the forum - Tribunal determinations enforce like court judgments - Claims cover repairs, accommodation, experts and general damages - [Making a leaky home (WHRS) claim](https://barristers.net.nz/services/civil-law/whrs-leaky-home-claims) ### The 10-year longstop Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 draws a hard line: no civil proceedings relating to building work more than ten years after the act or omission relied on — in practice usually counted from the code compliance certificate or the completion of the work. WHRS claims sit under the same ten-year limit. The longstop turns on when the work was done, not when the damage was found. Rot discovered in year eleven is not a late claim; it is no claim. That is the hardest conversation in this area of practice, and the reason the first step on any suspected leak is establishing the dates — consents, code compliance, completion — before anything else. Lodging the WHRS claim stops the clock, which makes speed cheap insurance: an assessment application filed early protects the position even while the scope of the problem is still being investigated. Waiting for certainty is how claims die. - s393 Building Act 2004 — ten years, absolute - Runs from the work or code compliance certificate, not discovery - Lodging the WHRS claim stops the clock - Date analysis is the first job on every file ### Multi-party claims — councils, builders, developers A leaky-home claim is almost never against one party. Builders, developers, the council that inspected and certified, subcontractors, sometimes cladding suppliers and non-disclosing vendors — all are commonly joined, with responsibility allocated between them through contribution claims. Recovery drives the party strategy. Building and development companies from the leaky era are frequently long wound up, so claims often stand or fall on the solvent respondents — commonly the council. For the owner's own claim, each respondent has to be joined before the longstop closes on them individually — which makes early, complete party analysis as important as the technical evidence. Nearly all of these claims settle at mediation, under the pressure of contribution positions and expensive repair evidence. The ones that settle well arrive with the assessor's report, the costings and the expert evidence already in order — ready for the hearing that will probably never happen. - Builder, developer, council, subcontractors and suppliers joined - Contribution claims allocate the blame between respondents - Insolvent builders make solvent parties — often councils — critical - Most claims settle at mediation, on the strength of preparation Part of: [Civil & Commercial Law](https://barristers.net.nz/services/civil-law) ## Frequently asked questions **What is a leaky home (WHRS) claim?** A claim for weathertightness defects in a home. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 gives owners a government-funded assessment and access to the specialist Weathertight Homes Tribunal as an alternative to court. Claims must generally be brought within 10 years of the work being done, and councils, builders and developers are commonly joined as parties. **Am I too late to bring a claim?** It depends on the dates, not the damage. The Building Act's ten-year longstop runs from the building work or code compliance certificate — not from when you discovered the problem — and once it has passed, the claim is gone regardless of merit. If you are anywhere near the limit, act immediately: lodging a WHRS claim stops the clock, and the assessment can catch up afterwards. **Who pays for a leaky home?** Usually several parties between them. Builders, developers, councils, subcontractors and suppliers are commonly joined to one claim, and the tribunal or court allocates shares of responsibility through contribution claims between them. In practice recovery depends on who is still solvent — original builders are often wound up, which is why councils frequently carry a significant share of these claims. **Should I go to the Tribunal or the court?** For most residential weathertightness claims, the Weathertight Homes Tribunal — it is a specialist forum, faster and less formal than court, it can pull every responsible party into the one proceeding, and its determinations are enforceable like judgments. Larger or multi-unit disputes can belong in the High Court. It is a choice made once, with advice, after the assessor's report is in.