Tizard Judith: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Tizard Judith: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:641;Page:11251] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs)  
on behalf of the 
 Minister for Building and Construction 
: I move  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Building (Consent Authorities) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This legislation confirms and clarifies Parliament’s intention that general damages for mental anxiety or distress can be awarded under the current Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 and the former Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002. 
Since the first Act was passed in November 2002 adjudicators have followed this principle by awarding general damages for mental anxiety or distress in a number of claims. When the current Act was passed in 2006 Parliament reproduced in it the relevant provisions of the former Act so that those awards could continue to be made. The same general damages apply of course to equivalent cases in the court system. It is widely accepted that owners of leaky homes should be able to claim general damages if they have suffered stress and anxiety as many have. 
The decision in  
Hartley v Balemi and Ors 
 held that such damages could not be awarded under the 2002 Act and this judgment also had implications for the 2006 Act. The High Court’s decision is as the Law Society stated at odds with what practitioners working in this area thought the legislation did and should provide for. The effect of the judgment if allowed to stand is that claimants might secure general damages for mental anxiety and distress from the courts but not from the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. This means that if Weathertight Homes Resolution Service claimants wanted to have a chance of obtaining compensation for suffering distress and mental anxiety they would have to file in the court system. That would be contrary to what was intended in the making of the law and it would have a detrimental effect on the way our justice system delivers in practice. This consequence was not and could not have been foreseen when Parliament enacted the 2006 Act as two District Court appeal decisions made in 2005 in examining the same matters in contention had held that general damages could be awarded. 
An added complication is that the 2006 Act enables the transfer of a claim from the courts to the tribunal and vice versa. Already since the tribunal commenced operations on 1 April 2007 it has received claims that were transferred from the courts. Clearly the effect of the High Court decision in the Hartley case was contrary to Parliament’s intention of having a specialist one-stop shop for dealing with leaky home claims. Urgent action was needed. The response had to be swift well crafted and lasting. It also had to be widely considered to be the right thing to do and not just by the owners of leaky homes. Therefore it is very pleasing that the New Zealand Law Society drawing on insights from lawyers operating in this field agreed to this necessary amendment. 
The bill makes it clear that general damages for mental anxiety or distress can be awarded. I emphasise that this bill does not require that such damages must be awarded. 
Debate interrupted.