In University of Canterbury v Insurance Council of New Zealand and Ors  NZSC 13 the Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal on the following issue:
“Where a building is an earthquake-prone building in terms of s 122(1) of the Building Act 2004, is a council entitled under s 124(1)(c)(i) of the Act to require the building to be strengthened to an extent greater than is necessary to ensure that the building will not have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in reg 7 of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005)?”
On 23 December 2013, the Supreme Court delivered what was presumably its last civil decision of the year: BFSL 2007 Limited & Ors and Bridgecorp Ltd & Ors v Steigrad, Houghton v AIG Insurance New Zealand Limited & Ors  NZSC 156 (mercifully shortened to “Steigrad” for easy reference) .
In short, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal. Sandy versions of this decision are no doubt being consulted by members of the profession on beaches all around New Zealand. Some will be whooping for joy, others may feel more like flinging the document into the ocean. Longer analysis to follow shortly.
Read the full decision here:- Steigrad Supreme Court judgment.