Case Study: Construction Law, Limitation, Health and Safety, RMA

This case study examines various aspects of construction law, addressing scenarios related to building defects, contractor responsibilities, and environmental concerns. The first part analyzes a situation where a cinema owner discovers structural issues and seeks legal recourse against the construction company and the council, considering limitation periods and potential claims under contract and tort law. The second section delves into the duties of a contractor under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, differentiating between the responsibilities of a PCBU, a worker, and a sub-contractor. Finally, the case study explores a scenario involving potential land contamination at a construction site, outlining steps for identification, assessment, and management of contaminants, along with the potential liabilities of the construction company.

Running Head: Case Study 1
The Application of the Law of Construction Management: An Discussion of Select Scenarios
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation

Case Study 2
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Question 1........................................................................................................................................3
Facts and Issues...........................................................................................................................3
Applicable rules/law....................................................................................................................3
Application of the rules...............................................................................................................4
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4
Question 2........................................................................................................................................5
Duties of a Contractor in Charge of a Site under the Work Act 2015.............................................5
a) As a PCBU............................................................................................................................5
b) As a Worker on the Site........................................................................................................5
c) As a Sub-Contractor.............................................................................................................6
Question 3........................................................................................................................................6
Facts of the case..........................................................................................................................6
How to identify if a Construction Site is contaminated, and what to do if.................................6
Potential Liability on the Construction Company if it fails to take action over contaminated
land..............................................................................................................................................7
References........................................................................................................................................8

Case Study 3
Introduction
Matters concerning constructions in New Zealand have many laws that apply to them, majorly
statutes and case law (Building Performance, 2017). This paper discusses specific construction
law scenarios. There is a different application for the different scenarios depending on the issues
arising from the facts of each. This study takes a specific format in responding to each of the two
problem questions posed. First, an outline of important facts with issues arising out of them
attached, second a discussion of various law; rules and regulations applying to the scenario.
Third, will be an application of the law to the scenario and finally a conclusion aimed at
providing this paper's response to the question.
Question 1
Facts and Issues
An individual enters into an eight million dollar contract with a construction company to have
them build a cinema for him. One year and two months later the company completes
construction. They obtain a Code of Compliance Certificate (CCC) from the Council about a
month after completion. About a year and a half after the practical completion the owner notices
cracks in the walls of a room. Five months after this he notices that that one of the doors could
not fully close. Furthermore, a building surveyor informs him that piles of the building were not
in accordance with the Building Code.
Taking into consideration any limitation issues, what legal claims can the owner raise against?
 The construction company and,
 The Council?
Applicable rules/law
New Zealand statutory law requires a builder to ensure that the work he does is in compliance
with both the building code and the building contract (Building Act of 2004). Under this Act
(section 14F) the authority dealing with the building consent has a duty to ensure the building
work has been carried out according to the building contract. A contractor is required by law to
repair any defective work they are given notice of within the first twelve months after the
building is completed. The contractor still has a legal duty to remedy defective work even when
this period ends, in what is an implied warranty by the Building Act covering a period of ten

Case Study 4
years. The Supreme Court of New Zealand has in recent instances put out that various authorities
have a duty of care to owners of buildings when conducting inspections (Body Corporate v
North Shore City Council, 2012). In this case, there was a claim against the Council for being
negligent in its inspection of the premises because there was a leakage in the hotels. The
Supreme Court asserted that the Local Councils do have a responsibility to the owners
concerning the issue of permits, code of compliance certificates, and supervision.
Furthermore, a recent decision by Downs J found a construction company (H Construction North
Island Limited) liable for defects at a school. Damages had to be paid in the amount of thirteen
million dollars. However, this claim was under Torts, for duty of care. Were it to be brought
under contract there would have been little chance for the claimants (Wynn Williams Advocates,
2018).
Application of the rules
Looking at this situation, the time frames of twelve months remedy provided in the Building Act
has elapsed and as such Grant may find it hard to convince a court that Katies Contractors have
caused him a loss of business profit through a breach of contract. His time of entitlement for free
repair has elapsed. Therefore it may be challenging for him to pursue such a claim against the
builders. Furthermore, the company will find it easy to defend themselves with the fact that the
Council actually approved of their work by providing them with the certificate.
On the matter of the cinema piles being of insufficient depth and being non-compliant with the
Building Code, there is evidently a sign of negligence by both KCL and the Council. One of the
terms implied by the Building Act is an expectation that materials used in construction will be
new and of the required conditions unless specified otherwise in the contract. As seen with the
decision of Justice Downs J against H Construction North Island Limited, and that in Body
Corporate v North Shore City Council, both the Council and KCL can be sued under torts for
negligence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Grant, despite there having been a large amount of time passed between the
construction and noticing of defects, does have a claim over both KCL and the Council. Even
then, he could only have a strong claim regarding the piles for both parties. For the door and the

Case Study 5
cracks, it would be easier to sue the Council. Even then, the claims would have to come under
the tort of negligence.
Question 2
Duties of a Contractor in Charge of a Site under the Work Act 2015
a) As a PCBU
A PCBU is described in the Act (Health and Safety at Work Act of 2015) is a “Person
Conducting a Business or Undertaking.” Volunteers are exempted from this definition. First, the
PCBU has a duty to provide and ensure the maintenance of safe tools of work that the workers
need. Secondly, the PCBU must give the workers with any learning, training, or instructions
required for the purpose of the work. The welfare and wellbeing of the workers must also be
taken well care of; especially matters heath (Bolotbaeva, 2018). If a worker uses the
accommodation in the site under the management of a PCBU, then the PCBU must under
reasonable terms ensure that the accommodation is well kept to keep the worker from being
exposed to risks to safety and health.
b) As a Worker on the Site
Among the many modifications that came to the Work Act is that workers have been given more
responsibility with regards to participation in the site. They now have more advanced roles to
play in ensuring their own safety and well-being, with the responsibility which was practically
on contractors and subcontractors now having to be shared by them (Nichols, 2016). In short,
safety has been made a responsibility of all parties. This is the situation, even though the
responsibility on contractors and their counterparts has not been reduced.
Reasonable practicability is a concept that has been introduced in the Act. This requires a
worker, with regards to risk management, to do actions that they find practically reasonable in
reducing risks to themselves and others. The worker also has a responsibility to share
relationship concerning the workplace and any other situations with the PCBU. This also entails
a duty to raise issues with the manager of a workplace personally.
Workers also have a responsibility to ensure they have the required training before participating
in the construction. Industrial Training Organizations can come handy in ensuring this. If not,

Case Study 6
they should contact the PCBU to make arrangements for them to get training for new tasks that
they make come about.
Furthermore, the worker should take good care of the site, tools, and any instruments availed for
the construction. Also, the worker must always ensure that they have a written employment
agreement with their employer; both must sign which. In which case it brings about the
employer-employee regulations under the law of New Zealand.
c) As a Sub-Contractor
The sub-contractor has an obligation under the Act to set up a meeting with the contractor to
evaluate what the work entails, including the risks and emergencies. There are several
documentations that he obligations under. The Site-Specific Health and Safety Agreement is
perhaps the main documentation he should check with the main contractor. There is a Hazard
Risk Register and the Hazardous Products and Substances Register all of which he has to check
with the contractor. There is also a responsibility to plan the job (Sitesafe, 2018). The
subcontractor must ensure safe use and storage of all plant, structures and any other tools of
work. Like the contractor, he also has a responsibility to provide workers with the necessary
training, learning, and supervision to ensure the contract is carried out diligently. Not only this,
but he also shares a welfare responsibility with the contractor, to ensure the conditions of the
workplace, especially health, are suitable for workers (Wadick, 2010).
Question 3
Facts of the case
A construction company is due to start construction of a shopping centre at a site for an owning
company. The Assistant Site Manager for the construction company has heard that the land of
the site may have been used previously as a mechanic workshop and a petrol station. He voices
these concerns to the Site Manager, who asks him to make up a short plan to look into the
suspicion and determine what to be done if they are confirmed.
Steps to identify if a Construction Site is contaminated
First, the assistant manager must contact the Council under which Silverdale is to inform them of
the situation. The Council could help with an expert to further look into the issue.

Case Study 7
There are ways in which the assistant could personally check out as well. For example, the
presence of oil storage tanks, oil smells, trenches, and other physical signs. He could also get
information about the land from a Land Information Memorandum (LIM). Another option is the
Project Information Memorandum, both of which could be obtained from the Council. He could
also look out in the council registers to determine whether the site has previously been a petrol
station. Talking to previous owners could also help to know the history of the site.
Steps for Assessing and Managing Contaminants
If the land is found to be on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL), then it may not
necessarily mean that it is contaminated beyond use. But if it is, the assistant has to talk to the
Council, which has access to the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund, supposed to be used to
help remediate the land.
Potential Liability on the Construction Company if it fails to take action over contaminated
land
Under statutory law (Environmental Protection Act of 1990) contractors can be held liable for
knowingly using contaminated land for construction. An important case study here is the case
involving Redland and Crest where the Secretary of State dismissed appeals by the two and held
them liable for construction work done on construction work done on contaminated land
(Thornton 2010). The major liability could be incurring the costs of remediation as was the case
in the appeals by the two. The Supreme Court decision of (Mobil Oil New Zealand v
Development Auckland 2016) also affirmed the liability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident that all parties have remarkable roles to play in matters concerning
construction sites. Owners, contractors, sub-contractors have a wide scope of responsibilities
ranging from making sure the construction land is not contaminated to ensuring that all
construction tools are well maintained. The Building Act, Environment Protection Act and
Health and Safety at Work Act among other statutes, are all evolving to ensure builders, owners
and third parties all have their well-being looked after in New Zealand.

Case Study 8
References
Articles/ Books/ Reports
Bolotbaeva, J. (2018). Occupational health and safety in New Zealand: tripartite views on the
Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Auckland University of Technology.
Building Performance. (2017, December 8). Builder and designer rights and obligations.
Retrieved 23rd May 2019 from https://www.building.govt.nz/getting-started/your-rights-
and-obligations/builder-and-designer-rights-and-obligations
Nichols, V. (2016). Occupational health and safety: why and how should worker participation be
enhanced in New Zealand? New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 41(2).
Sitesafe. (2018). Subcontractor responsibilities. Retrieved 23rd May 2019 from
https://www.sitesafe.org.nz/guides--resources/practical-safety-advice/subcontractor-
responsibilities/
Thornton, J. (2010). Significant UK environmental cases: 2009/2010. Journal of Environmental
Law, 22(2), 315-334.
Wadick, P. (2010). Safety culture among subcontractors in the domestic housing construction
industry. Structural Survey, 28(2), 108-120.
Wynn Williams Advocates. (2018, May 18). New Zealand: Hawkins liable for 13.4 million
dollars: summary of the latest case involving builder negligence. Retrieved 23rd May
2019 from
https://www.mondaq.com/NewZealand/x/702536/Building+construction/Hawkins+liable
+for+134+million+summary+of+the+latest+case+involving+builder+negligence
Cases
Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd v Development Auckland Ltd [2016] NZSC 89
Body Corporate No 207624 v North Shore City Council [2012] NZSC 83
Legislation
Building Act, 2004.
Environmental Protection Act, 1990.
Health and Safety at Work Act, 2015.