Quake-prone building court case loss sends Carterton council back to square one
Tuesday, 7 July 2026
Earthquake-prone building notices may have to be reissued to a small number of buildings in Wairarapa town after the district council took a court case asking for the previous notices to be declared valid - and lost.
It appears Carterton District Council will have to start its earthquake-prone building assessment process again from scratch, after the High Court judge hearing the case said it may not have done it properly to start with.
It could also mean another 15 years before the council could enforce the requirements to bring the buildings up to code.
The council took its own case to the High Court seeking declaratory judgment about the validity of two earthquake-prone building notices issued by the council in 2017 under the Building Act 2004, despite some mistakes in the notices.
Read more:
The council took it as a test case, but lost after the judge said they had not proved there was any evidence about who completed the initial assessment, their qualifications or expertise.
The Building Act required councils in 2006 to adopt a policy about earthquake-prone buildings, which would include issuing notices that they would need to be fixed within a certain time frame.
Justice Helen McQueen in the High Court at Wellington said the council identified about 150 buildings back then. Among them was 53-55 High St North owned by James Alan Moran.
The buildings were identified by an initial drive-by and desktop study of the buildings. The council then sent preliminary notices about earthquake-prone assessments to building owners and asked them to submit independent structural engineering assessments.
If they did not they would go on the register as an earthquake-prone building.
New notices were then issued in 2016 and again in 2017.
Moran did not respond to the notices.
The council sought declarations from the High Court to validate the 2017 notices which would affect 18 other building owners on the EPB Register.
The judge said if the court did not make such a declaration, the council would have to issue new notices which would record the deadline for completing seismic work as 15 years from the date of issue, meaning the council would not be able to take any steps to enforce compliance for such a period.
“The council’s goal is to determine whether or not it needs to issue new notices to the building owners,” McQueen said.
Moran disagreed that the council complied with its own earthquake-prone building policy to start with.
McQueen said Moran claimed there was no evidence to establish that the council was satisfied that his buildings were assessed as being earthquake-prone.
Moran said the notices were invalid because the council could not have been satisfied that the building was earthquake-prone, only potentially earthquake-prone.
His lawyer told the judge that the owners of earthquake-prone buildings, including Moran, were entitled to rely on the process set out in the policy as to what will happen with their buildings.
“The council incorrectly circumvented that policy and, following a period of silence of 10 years, issued EPB notices to the building owners, requiring action within five years.”
The judge agreed.
She said on the evidence provided she was not satisfied that the council followed its EPB Policy in undertaking this initial assessment.
“The clear implication of the EPB Policy is that the initial assessment will be undertaken by a suitably qualified individual. However, the reality is there is no evidence about who completed the initial assessment, their qualifications or expertise. “
That meant the notices requiring the work to be done meant the notices were not valid.
The council will also have to pay Moran’s legal costs.
Council chief executive Geoff Hamilton said they sought the court’s guidance on the status of historic earthquake-prone building notices and the appropriate next steps for council.
“Public safety remains a priority, and the judgment confirms we can undertake new assessments and consider issuing notices under the current Building Act framework.”
He said while the case related to a single property, it may have wider implications for other buildings and potentially other councils that worked under similar historic processes.