Appeal — recovery of extra cost — negligence — limitation period — fire alarm system — Code Compliance Certificate — backdating — District Court’s powers on appeal — Building Act 2004, ss 3, 177, 181, 188, 211 & 393 — Building Code — Dr E v Director of Proceedings (2008) 18 PRNZ 1003 — Cooper v Tasman District Council, Nelson District Court, CIV-2009-042-000116 — Weaver & Anderson v HML Nominees Limited [2015] NZHC 2080 — Middledorp v Avondale Jockey Club [2020] NZCA 13 — Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2016] 1 NZLR 1056. In 2002 the respondent district council had issued a Code Compliance Certificate (CCC) for a motel owned by the appellant, despite the fact that the motel had no fire alarm system as was required by its building consent. The lack of a fire alarm went unnoticed until a subsequent inspection in 2015, following which the appellant was issued a dangerous building notice and required to install smoke detectors and alarms. Once the appellant had done so, it was issued with a new CCC in 2016. The appellant argued that the respondent had been negligent in failing to originally notice the lack of an alarm system; it sought to recover the extra costs it had incurred in installing the alarm system, arguing that it would have been much cheaper to have done so at the time of the original inspection in 2002. The appellant applied to the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for a determination on the respondent's issuing the building consent and CCC. The determination found that the building consent was correctly issued; the CCC was incorrectly issued; and that there was now a working alarm system in the motel, so there was no need to reverse the 2002 decision to issue the CCC. The appellant appealed the decision not to reverse the CCC, arguing that the relevant CCC was the one issued in 2016; this would allow the appellant to bring proceedings against the respondent without being time-barred by the Building Act's limitation period. The appellants raised various arguments relating to the correct use of the Chief Executive's powers to make determinations under the Building Act, and whether she had been obliged to either reverse or modify the 2002 CCC. The Court found that although the respondent had been wrong to issue a CCC in 2002, the appellant's motel now complied with regulations because it had a working fire alarm system. Therefore there was no need to reverse or modify the CCC; indeed, there were good reasons not to do so. The Chief Executive had exercised her powers correctly. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment Date: 16 September 2021.