From Foundations to Finish? The Continuing Duty Doctrine and Limitations

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.