Originating application — protest to jurisdiction of District Court — asbestos — danger to public health — "dangerous building" — warrant to avoid immediate danger — Building Act 2004, ss 121, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 177 & 182 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 5.51 & 20.17 — Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 — Rotorua District Council v Rua Developments Limited [1998] DCR 1097 — Davidson v Palmerston North City Council and Building Industry Authority, HC Palmerston North, CIV-2004-454-670, 8/12/04 — Flynn and Newlands v Scotson and Bay Building Certifiers Limited, DC Tauranga, NP 1098/00, 28/5/02. The proceedings concerned a commercial building belonging to a trust represented by the respondents. The applicant had granted a building consent for work to be done on the building. The consent included a condition that asbestos in the building be properly managed while the works were carried out. WorkSafe inspectors investigated the works and concluded that the respondents were not meeting the condition, and that the works could release asbestos fibres that would threaten the health of local people. Subsequently the applicant issued a warrant under the Building Act, that allowed it to carry out actions to remedy the risk from the asbestos. The respondents considered that their works had been meeting the conditions in the building consent and had not been creating a danger to public health. Subsequently the respondents refused a request from the applicant to confirm the warrant, meaning that the applicant had to file proceedings to seek confirmation of the warrant in the District Court. The respondents in turn submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, and that it was for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (the Chief Executive) to decide. The Court found that it retained jurisdiction per the Building Act, even if there is also an application before the Chief Executive. The application concerned a warrant to carry out work, and the Chief Executive had no jurisdiction over warrants. The fact that the actions carried out by the applicant did not exactly match what was stated in the warrant did not take away the Court's jurisdiction. The applicant had taken steps to mitigate health dangers posed by the works, which was the intention of the legislation and more important than following exactly what the warrant said. The Court ruled that it did have jurisdiction to decide whether to confirm the warrant. Judgment Date: 28 September 2022