THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZHC 3344

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZHC 3344

The plaintiffs' spreadsheet provides adequate particulars as to presence of defects and visible damage for the majority of the ordered particulars, but the plaintiffs have not complied with the earlier order insofar as it required specific particulars linking alleged defects or failures to compliance with or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 3344
Parties
First Plaintiff: THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION; Second Plaintiff: THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION; Third Plaintiff: THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION; Fourth Plaintiff: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OREWA PRIMARY SCHOOL; First Defendant: JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND; Second Defendant: STUDORP LIMITED; Third Defendant: CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED; Fourth Defendant: CSR BUILDING PRODUCTS (NZ) LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence With Statutory Claims Under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, Fair Trading Act 1986 and Building Act 2004 / Interlocutory Compliance Hearing on Further Particulars Following Judgment of 3 October 2014
Outcome
Application resulted in partial compliance finding: plaintiffs complied with most particulars but failed to provide required particulars relating to E2/AS1 compliance and whether defects exist notwithstanding compliance; parties ordered to agree enhanced particulars or return to Court; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Further Particulars, Pleadings, Acceptable Solutions E2/as1, Economic Loss, Damage Pleading
Tort Negligence Building Law Consumer Law Civil Procedure Pleadings and Particulars Further Particulars Pleadings Acceptable Solutions E2/as1 Economic Loss +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION

First Plaintiff

THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

Second Plaintiff

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Third Plaintiff

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OREWA PRIMARY SCHOOL

Fourth Plaintiff

JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND

First Defendant

STUDORP LIMITED

Second Defendant

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED

Third Defendant

CSR BUILDING PRODUCTS (NZ) LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence With Statutory Claims Under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, Fair Trading Act 1986 and Building Act 2004 / Interlocutory Compliance Hearing on Further Particulars Following Judgment of 3 October 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the spreadsheet particulars supplied by the plaintiffs adequately plead damage and causes of damage building-by-building
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have pleaded particulars relating to compliance with acceptable solution E2/AS1 and whether the cladding was defective notwithstanding compliance
  3. 3 Whether compliance with an acceptable solution constitutes a complete defence to negligence and how that affects pleading requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' spreadsheet provides adequate particulars as to presence of defects and visible damage for the majority of the ordered particulars, but the plaintiffs have not complied with the earlier order insofar as it required specific particulars linking alleged defects or failures to compliance with or deviation from the acceptable solution E2/AS1 and pleading whether the product was defective notwithstanding compliance; the Court requires further particulars on E2/AS1 compliance or parties must agree spreadsheet extensions or return to Court for directions.

Court Disposition

Application resulted in partial compliance finding: plaintiffs complied with most particulars but failed to provide required particulars relating to E2/AS1 compliance and whether defects exist notwithstanding compliance; parties ordered to agree enhanced particulars or return to Court; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Ministry's spreadsheet satisfies orders for particulars at para 3(a)(ii),(iii) and (iv) of the 3 October judgment but does not comply with 3(a)(i)(A),(B) and (v) concerning E2/AS1; further particulars on E2/AS1 compliance and whether the cladding was defective notwithstanding compliance must be provided
  • Parties are to confer and agree appropriate extensions to the spreadsheet to capture E2/AS1 compliance particulars and to plead whether installations were compliant and, if so, particulars explaining why damage nonetheless results; if parties cannot agree the Court will hear argument to resolve implementation