Making a leaky home (WHRS) claim

A weathertightness claim is, at its core, a claim that water has penetrated the building envelope because of the way the home was designed, built or supervised — cladding systems, flashings, decks, parapets, joinery — and has caused damage. Many of the affected homes were built between the early 1990s and the mid-2000s, when untreated timber and monolithic cladding systems were widely used.

The damage is often hidden: rot in the framing behind an intact-looking wall. That is why the statutory assessment matters — it establishes what is actually wrong, what caused it, and what it will cost to fix, before positions harden.

The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 lets an eligible owner apply for a government-funded assessor's report. If the claim qualifies, the owner can then choose between the Weathertight Homes Tribunal — a specialist forum with adjudicators experienced in building disputes — and the ordinary courts.

The Tribunal was designed for these cases: it is faster and less formal than court, it can join every responsible party into the one proceeding, and its determinations are enforceable like court judgments. For most residential claims it is the right forum; larger or multi-unit disputes sometimes belong in the High Court.

Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 imposes a hard limit: no civil proceedings relating to building work may be brought more than 10 years after the act or omission relied on — in practice, usually measured from the code compliance certificate or the completion of the relevant work. A WHRS claim must likewise be brought within 10 years of the home being built or altered.

The longstop is unforgiving. It does not matter how serious the damage is or how recently it was discovered — once the 10 years have run, the claim is gone. Anyone who suspects weathertightness issues should get the assessment underway immediately, because lodging the claim stops the clock.

Leaky-home litigation is multi-party litigation. A typical claim joins the builder, the developer, the council that inspected and certified the work, subcontractors, and sometimes the cladding manufacturer or the vendor who failed to disclose. Each respondent's share of responsibility is worked out through contribution claims between them.

For the owner, the practical significance is recovery: builders and development companies from the leaky era are frequently wound up, so the claim often succeeds or fails on the solvent parties — commonly the council. Getting the right parties joined early, before the longstop closes on any of them, is a large part of the job.

The core of the claim is the cost of remediation — assessed on the repair methodology the evidence supports, which in bad cases means a full reclad. On top of that sit consequential losses: alternative accommodation during repairs, expert and consenting costs, and in appropriate cases general damages for stress and inconvenience, which the courts have routinely awarded in weathertightness cases.

Against that sits betterment (the repaired home being better than the original), any contributory factors, and the practical question of what the respondents can actually pay. A realistic early valuation shapes everything — including whether to settle at the mediation that these claims almost always pass through.

Very few weathertightness claims run to a full hearing. The repair evidence is expensive to contest, the contribution positions between respondents create pressure to deal, and both the Tribunal process and court directions push the parties into mediation. Most claims resolve there.

That does not make the preparation optional. The claims that settle well are the ones with the assessor's report, the quantity surveyor's costings and the expert evidence lined up — the same trial-readiness principle that runs through all of the chambers' civil work.