New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Weathertightness

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2023

BODY CORPORATE 422631 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 2023 [1 August 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2023
Court

High Court

Leave was granted to QLDC to issue third party notices against Naylor Love Limited and Holmes Fire and Safety Limited because of their direct involvement and the likelihood they are joint tortfeasors and because the issues overlap with the existing proceeding; non-party discovery orders were made as unopposed; timetable directions were imposed while preserving the fixed hearing date and costs were reserved with directions on submissions.
5 May 2023

BODY CORPORATE 406198 & ORS v ARGON CONSTRUCTION LTD & ORS [2023] NZHC 1072

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1072
Court

High Court

Under r 9.8 the Court exercised its discretion to admit the plaintiffs' supplementary/reply expert briefs from Mr August and Mr Hakin because the evidence was directly material to a central issue (scope of remedial works), arose in response to defendants' expert evidence, conferral had occurred, prejudice to defendants was minimal and manageable, and the interests of justice favored admission without adjournment.
4 Apr 2023

FORD v BLUNDELL [2023] NZHC 741

Citation

[2023] NZHC 741
Court

High Court

Scale costs as calculated by the applicant ($31,667.50) are allowed. A 20% uplift (not 50%) is awarded on steps taken after 31 August 2022 for unreasonable rejection of the 22 August 2022 settlement proposal and failure to accept expert evidence. Specific expert fees were disallowed (Prendos/Mr O'Sullivan and Fraser Thomas) and We Subdivide fees discounted to 20%. Other disbursements and GST were allowed. Costs and adjusted disbursements are awarded against the first and fourth respondents.
7 Mar 2022

JOHNS v HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 379

Citation

[2022] NZHC 379
Court

High Court

The Court held that water ingress arose from multiple construction defects (notably parapet/cap flashing workmanship and details, rivet sealing, saddle flashings, deck membrane sequencing, balustrade fixings, window to cladding junctions and insufficient cavity ventilation). Hamilton City Council breached its duty in inspecting and in failing to require adequate consent details in several respects; Garth Davey breached duties as developer and supervising builder. Primary responsibility for roof-related defects lay with the roofing subcontractor (NLR) and supervising roofing contractor (Westga…
29 Nov 2021

LINEHAN v THAMES COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3234

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3234
Court

High Court

The Council breached duties only in relation to the balcony tiling (certification in 2011 and consenting in 2016 for direct-fixed tiles); other alleged 2011 breaches (cladding, seals, parapets, tanking, roofing, Z flashings) were not established; damages awarded are limited to a 50% share of quantified targeted repairs for balcony defects ($598,610 assessed; plaintiffs awarded $299,305), 50% of wasted 2016 remediation costs ($197,528 assessed; plaintiffs awarded $98,764), and 50% of general damages ($7,500), with interest at 5% per annum; plaintiffs' recoverable damages reduced by 50% for con…
10 Sept 2021

BODY CORPORATE 324371 v CLARK BROWN ARCHITECTS LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2379

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2379
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court found established balcony waterproofing defects and north/south Overclad façade defects that breached the Building Code and attributed primary responsibility to Brookfield Multiplex for design, supervision and quality control failures; roof defects were not established and fire defects were established as breaches at construction but their quantum could not be fully quantified; on apportionment based on roles and prior authority the Court awarded contribution of 85% of the Council's settlement to be paid by Brookfield Multiplex and 15% to the Council,…
11 Aug 2021

CRIDGE v STUDORP LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2077

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2077
Court

High Court

Court found that while manufacturers of cladding owe a duty of care to homeowners, the plaintiffs failed to establish that Harditex or the Harditex system was inherently defective or unfit for purpose; comprehensive building science evidence (drainage/drying behaviour, decay resistance) and testing did not support the homeowners' primary causation theory; many failures were attributable to design choices, deficient site workmanship, non-compliance with standards and maintenance deficits; JHTIs (from 1991 and especially 1998) were not shown to be so inadequate as to constitute a breach; Fair T…
21 May 2021

BODY CORPORATE 384825 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1157

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1157
Court

High Court

Where a defendant answers detailed multi‑allegation complaint paragraphs with bare denials that do not fairly and substantially answer the allegations, and given the advanced stage and evidential exchange in this complex building case, the court will order further and better particulars to identify which defects, breaches, damages, repairs and loss items are admitted or denied and to particularise certain limitation and notice allegations; but the court will not require defendants to set out alternative repair plans or audit each plaintiff invoice.
12 May 2021

WAITAKERE GROUP LTD v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LTD [2021] NZHC 1052

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1052
Court

High Court

The court held that interrogatories asking categorical yes/no questions about whether specific testing of Harditex and Monotek occurred were relevant and necessary and not unduly burdensome, but excluded and refused to order answers to interrogatories that were open-ended, ambiguous or amounted to de-facto discovery (notably requests for documentary listings or for 'who conducted' tests and 'results' which may require expert interpretation). Leave to amend interrogatory 188 (clerical date error) was granted; amendment/answering of interrogatory 247 was adjourned and timetabled. Specific inter…
27 Apr 2021

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 894

Citation

[2021] NZHC 894
Court

High Court

The Court granted the Council an extension of time to bring the review and ordered the plaintiffs to provide a further breakdown of the estimated remedial costs by category of work (aligned to the plaintiffs' supplied scope of works) by 31 July 2021; the Court held that at this advanced stage of litigation greater particularisation of estimated costs (by category) is required to inform the Council of its potential liability, while accepting precise apportionment by individual defect may be impractical and estimates are acceptable.