@article {Beswick:2013:1173-5864:505,
title = "From Foundations to Finish? The Continuing Duty Doctrine and Limitations",
journal = "New Zealand Law Review",
parent_itemid = "infobike://lrf/nzlr",
publishercode ="lrf",
year = "2013",
volume = "2013",
number = "4",
publication date ="2013-12-24T00:00:00",
pages = "505-520",
itemtype = "ARTICLE",
issn = "1173-5864",
url = "https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/lrf/nzlr/2013/00002013/00000004/art00006",
author = "Beswick, Samuel",
abstract = "In Johnson v Watson [2003] 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.",
}