From Foundations to Finish? The Continuing Duty Doctrine and Limitations
In Johnson v Watson  1 NZLR 626 the Court of Appeal commented that builders may owe a continuing duty over the course of the construction period to remedy defects. By and large, the courts have been cautious to embrace this “continuing duty” theory and have shown a reluctance to define its parameters. Since Johnson v Watson, a line of cases have held that a continuing duty on designers and contractors is “tenable” and “arguable” and therefore not a field ripe for strike-out. Yet there has been little analysis of what it means to owe a “continuing duty”, when the concept arises, and the consequences for statutory limitation periods. This article traverses the discussion to date to elicit the common principles of the theory.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Article Media
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: December 1, 2013
More about this publication?
- The New Zealand Law Review, published quarterly by the Legal Research Foundation Inc. since 1966, is the premier law journal published in New Zealand. It includes refereed articles by leading New Zealand and international scholars, together with annual and biennial reviews of the major areas of the law, written by specialist contributing editors.
- Editorial Board
- Information for Authors
- Submit a Paper
- Subscribe to this Title
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites