An insurance expert says a Supreme Court decision yesterday could open lawyers up to legal action from anybody who has bought a home in Christchurch since the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. The court's decision makes it clear that insurers cannot be held liable for meeting the full replacement cost of a quake damaged home by the subsequent purchaser of that house.
This paper presents the preliminary conclusions of the first stage of Wellington Case Study project (Regulating For Resilience in an Earthquake Vulnerable City) being undertaken by the Disaster Law Research Group at the University of Canterbury Law School. This research aims to map the current regulatory environment around improving the seismic resilience of the urban built environment. This work provides the basis for the second stage of the project which will map the regulatory tools onto the reality of the current building stock in Wellington. Using a socio-legal methodology, the current research examines the regulatory framework around seismic resilience for existing buildings in New Zealand, with a particularly focus on multi-storey in the Wellington CBD. The work focusses both on the operation and impact of the formal seismic regulatory tools open to public regulators (under the amended Building Act) as other non-seismic regulatory tools. As well as examining the formal regulatory frame, the work also provides an assessment of the interactions between other non-building acts (such as Health and Safety at Work Act 2015) on the requirements of seismic resilience. Other soft-law developments (particularly around informal building standards) are also examined. The final output of this work will presents this regulatory map in a clear and easily accessible manner and provide an assessment of the suitability of this at times confusing and patchy legal environment as Wellington moves towards becoming a resilient city. The final conclusion of this work will be used to specifically examine the ability of Wellington to make this transition under the current regulatory environment as phase two of the Wellington Case Study project.
The world experiences a number of disasters each year. Following a disaster, the affected area moves to a phase of recovery which involves multiple stakeholders. An important element of recovery is planning the rebuild of the affected environment guided by the legislative framework to which planning is bound to (March & Kornakova, 2017). Yet, there appears to be little research that has investigated the role of planners in a recovery setting and the implications of recovery legislative planning frameworks. This study was conducted to explore the role of the planner in the Canterbury earthquake recovery process in New Zealand and the impact of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (CER Act) on planners’ roles and how they operated. The methodology comprised a combination of document analysis of legislation and related recovery material and 21 semi-structured interviews with key planners, politicians and professionals involved in the recovery. The results suggest that the majority of planners interviewed were affected by the CER Act in their role and how they operated, although institutional context, especially political constraints, was a key factor in determining the degree of impact. It is argued that planners played a key role in recovery and were generally equipped in terms of skills needed in a recovery setting. In order to better utilise planners in post-disaster recovery or disaster risk management, two suggestions are proposed. Firstly, better promote planners and their capabilities to improve awareness of what planners can do. Secondly, educate and build an understanding between central government politicians and planners over each others role to produce better planning outcomes.
The Earthquake Commission has settled with a Christchurch homeowner, just days before their test case was due to be heard at the High Court. Jamie Gibling used his KiwiSaver to buy his first family home in New Brighton after the quakes, believing it had been properly repaired. He later learned the repairs were botched and would cost $300,000 to fix. His "onsold" test case was supposed to be heard on Monday to clarify who was liable. But today EQC announced it had reached a settlement with the family and that agreement would provide a framework for the 54 other claimants also with Shine Lawyers. Finance and EQC Minister Grant Robertson last week announced an "onsold" settlement kitty of $300 million for the next 12 months but legal experts working with claimants have told Checkpoint it could cost taxpayers much much more. EQC's Deputy Chief Executive is Renee Walker. On Thursday she came into the studio and Lisa Owen asked her if the Giblings got what they asked for and if the 54 others who signed up to the class action would get the same.