What the judgment says is that the remedy available in the event of a failure to comply with section 62 is prescribed by the Act, and therefore the Act circumscribes the consequences that flow from a breach of section 62.
If you look at it another way, if the intention was that damages should flow from a breach, then the Act should say that (note the CTTT doesn’t have the power to award damages).
It is worthwhile reading the case to understand the context – here you have an owner who wanted ventilation to two of his lots. The OC didn’t refuse until considerable time and effort had been spent trying to find ways of fixing the problem. So it is not a case of the OC refusing to do anything. On my reading of the case it was the owner who was more intractable, because he only wanted to use the two lots for specific purposes and have ventilation supplied to those lots at very specific standards.
I am not so sure if this would let parties off the hook who were party to a breach of section 62 and were negligent. You could possibly take action against them personally, and if they were negligent they would not be covered by insurance. In the case given of an EC failing to fix a wall in danger of falling down, yes I think you would have a very clear civil claim against the individuals on the EC, as distinct from the OC.