International building materials company James Hardie is at the centre of a $220 million leaky homes lawsuit. Video / File / Getty
Homeowners failed in their legal appeal against building products manufacturer James Hardie New Zealand and Studorp over the Harditex building cladding system.
The decision of three Court of Appeal judges has been released today.
Justice Christine French, Justice Brendan Brown and Justice Murray Gilbert dismissed the case brought by thetwo sets of homeowners.
Tracey Jane Cridge, Mark Anthony Unwin, Katrina McKellar Fowler and Scott Woodhead appealed the High Court decision of Justice Simon France, who found Harditex worked and was fit for purpose.
From 1987 until 2005, Studorp and James Hardie New Zealand manufactured and sold the Harditex sheet cladding system for use in residential houses, the Court of Appeal summarised.
A group of homeowners whose houses were built using that Harditex claimed it was an inherently defective product that was not fit for purpose.
They further claimed it had either caused or contributed to causing their homes to suffer water ingress and moisture-related damage.
The effect of that High Court judgment from a hearing which ran for almost four months was to spell the death knell for the homeowners and also the claims of represented class members.
Justice France in the High Court said the homeowners had failed to prove Harditex was inherently flawed or unable to deliver a watertight and durable house.
Instead, he said Harditex worked, even though it was capable of improvements.
The first Harditex claim was brought by Tracey Cridge and Mark Unwin, who claim their Wellington home suffered widespread internal water damage.
So the homeowners appealed, but the decision out today rejected that.
“Their counsel have left no stone unturned,” today’s Court of Appeal decision said.
They challenged almost all of the judge’s factual findings, on multiple grounds, so that to a significant extent the appeal has involved a complete relitigation of most trial issues.
The homeowners’ legal team was led by Jim Farmer KC and included specialist weathertightness litigator Tim Rainey and others.
Jack Hodder KC led the team representing Studorp and James Hardie.
James Hardie sought to support the High Court’s decision.
Today’s decision said appeals were based on criticisms of the High Court judgement.
The Appeal Court judges said their assessment of evidence was that James Hardie experts had greater expertise and gave their evidence in a more measured and less partisan way than some of the experts called by the homeowners.
Evidence from properties tested did not undermine the evidence of the James Hardie experts.
“On the contrary, the test properties tended to support the James Hardie claim that, when properly constructed and maintained, Harditex was fit for purpose,” the Appeal Court decision said.
None of the test properties had been built in compliance with the James Hardie installation instructions and all contained significant building defects. They did not provide a meaningful test of the Harditex system.
The technical instructions provided by James Hardie were adequate and, with one possible exception, did not amount to operative misstatements, the Court of Appeal decision said.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 24 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
