The Auckland District Court and North Shore District Court have delivered verdicts in two separate cases, stressing the importance of adhering to New Zealand’s building laws.
Both cases highlight the repercussions of bypassing legal requirements designed to protect public safety and environmental standards.
Auckland Council v Scott Ferguson-Yearbury and SDY Equity Holdings Limited
In a significant ruling, Mr Ferguson-Yearbury and SDY Equity Holdings Limited were fined a total of $52,500 for multiple breaches of the Building Act 2004 and the Auckland Council District Plan (Hauraki Gulf Islands Plan).
The charges relate to building work carried out without consent, contrary to Section 40 of the Building Act.
Mr Ferguson-Yearbury and his company constructed a retaining wall on his property on Waiheke Island without consent, then failed to comply with a notice to fix under Section 168 of the Building Act.
He also carried out restricted construction in a bush residential zone without resource consent, breaching District Plan rules and the Resource Management Act 1991.
Judge Smith noted that while Mr. Ferguson-Yearbury’s intention was to create a "forever home," the lack of required consents and failure to act on warnings significantly compounded the gravity of the offences.
"The Building Act and Resource Management Act are clear - consents exist to ensure safety and protect our communities. These laws are not optional and cannot be ignored," Judge Smith stated.
Auckland Council’s Team Leader Investigations, David Pawson reinforced Judge Smith’s stance.
“Rules and consents are there for a reason—to safeguard public safety and environmental integrity. The penalties reflect the seriousness of these breaches. You cannot sidestep the law and expect to avoid accountability,” Mr Pawson says.
Mr Ferguson-Yearbury received a 30 per cent discount on his penalties for an early guilty plea and prior good conduct. The company, however, was granted only a 25 per cent discount.
Auckland Council v Mr Ping Meng
In a separate case, Judge Fitzgibbon declined an application for discharge without conviction for Mr Ping Meng, who constructed a dwelling in Rosses Road, Pinehill, without building consent. Mr Meng was fined $14,000.
The Court noted the defendant’s commercial motivation and the potential public safety risks posed by the unauthorised building, which included sanitation and cooking facilities.
“The building consent requirement exists to ensure safety for occupants and future owners,” said Judge Fitzgibbon.
“As a carpenter and a long-standing resident in New Zealand, Mr Meng was fully aware of his obligations; ignorance of the law cannot be claimed.”
The Court acknowledged mitigating factors, including Mr Meng’s otherwise good character and early guilty plea. However, the commercial nature of the project and lack of evidence for unequal consequences reinforced the need for a conviction and financial penalty.
“Professionals in the construction industry have a heightened responsibility to comply with building laws. Mr. Meng’s case sends a clear message—attempting to cut corners, especially for profit, will not be tolerated,” added Mr Pawson.
These cases reiterate the Court’s commitment to upholding New Zealand’s building and resource management laws. The penalties reflect the fundamental importance of compliance in protecting public safety and the environment.
