Administrative decision finds some units provisionally ineligible for financial assistance
New Zealand’s Supreme Court has dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a case arising from an administrative decision deeming some block units provisionally ineligible for central government financial assistance under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006.
In Body Corporate 355492 v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2025] NZSC 180, the applicant owned a four-block multi-unit complex in Queenstown that had leaks requiring weathertightness repairs.
After the applicant filed a multi-unit complex claim for financial assistance from the government under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act, a claims advisor performed an initial evaluation.
In February 2016, the advisor informed the applicant that the respondent – the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment – considered the claim eligible. The advisor noted that some units might qualify for financial assistance.
The advisor’s email included an appendix summarising the units’ initial qualifying status. The appendix indicated that only dwellinghouse units could receive financial assistance and that the Block 4 units were not dwellinghouses, as the relevant building consent pertained to a commercial building.
The courts below observed that certain Block 4 car parks, allocated for the exclusive use of Block 3 unit owners, might be eligible.
New Zealand’s High Court refused relief because it determined that the decision-maker had not purported to exclude the car parks. On the other hand, New Zealand’s Court of Appeal noted that the parties had not strictly raised this issue before it.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal. The applicant alleged that the respondent found the claim, including Block 4’s units and common areas, eligible through the delegate’s communication of that final decision.
The applicant argued that the advisor’s further advice regarding potential financial assistance was unsolicited, inconsistent with the respondent’s eligibility decision, and incapable of overriding or modifying the decision.
The applicant asserted that the proposed appeal would:
Regarding the Block 4 car parks, the applicant claimed that the appeal court should have granted relief, given that the respondent had accepted that the decision-maker did not intend to exclude Block 4 in its entirety.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $2,500 in costs. The Supreme Court saw no issues of general or public importance and no risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice in the civil context.
The Supreme Court explained that the administrative decision did not suggest that the Block 4 units were eligible.
Instead, according to the Supreme Court, the decision determined that the Block 4 units were provisionally ineligible, as they appeared not to be dwellinghouses, although the entire complex amounted to an eligible claim, pursuant to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act’s aim of consolidating dwellinghouse claims for a swift resolution.
The Supreme Court held that the courts below did not err in interpreting the decision as communicated and did not strictly need to refer to any extrinsic material to assist with their interpretation.
Regarding the Block 4 car parks, the Supreme Court agreed with the respondent that this proposed appeal ground had become moot.
