Building inspection — toilet locks — Notice to Fix — adequate fire escape — safety — definition of occupant — building performance — human agency — Building Regulations 1992, sch 1, cl A2 — Building Code — Building Act 2004, ss 3, 7, 16, 22, 23, 103, 108-111, 116 & 208-211 — Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fire Safety, Evacuation Procedures, and Evacuation Schemes) Regulations 2018 — Building (Building Code: Fire Safety and Signs) Amendment Regulations 2012, cl 8(1) — Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017, ss 3, 187,191 & 192. The appellant city council had inspected a building owned by the first respondent and found issues with the locks used in the toilets. The building comprised of six businesses and the toilets provided used three types of locks. The second respondent, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), issued a Notice to Fix to the first respondent for lock types 2 and 3 but deemed lock type 1 to be safe. The city council appealed that decision, believing the type 1 locks did not comply with safe building standards. The type 1 locks could be opened using a key from the shop side and remain unlocked, and able to be pushed open from the toilet side, until relocked using the key. Once locked from the shop side, the door could not be opened or unlocked from the toilet side. Both type 2 and type 3 locks automatically locked on closing, and required a key to be unlocked from the toilet side. MBIE decided locks 1 were safe as it would be unlikely that a person would be locked in the toilet, as it would have to happen by human error. The Judge did not agree this conclusion was correct. The point of relevant legislation was not human error but rather to ensure building performance and uphold fire safety regulations. MBIE's decision was reversed and the first respondent was to be issued a Notice to Fix the type 1 locks. Judgment Date: 12 February 2020.