Andrews v AHS Construction Limited - [2024] NZHC 937

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV-2022-470-000084

[2024] NZHC 937

BETWEEN
DANIEL WILLIAM KELLY ANDREWS and GLENDA LORRAINE ANDREWS

Appellants

AND

AHS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: 10 July 2023

Appearances:

D Fraundorfer and A Needham for the Appellants N Elsmore and C Frost for the Respondent

Judgment:

26 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 April 2024 at 4.00 pm pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

DANIEL WILLIAM KELLY ANDREWS and GLENDA LORRAINE ANDREWS v AHS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2024] NZHC 937 [26 April 2024]

[1] Daniel and Glenda Andrews have appealed a decision of Judge K D Kelly. Judge Kelly found Mr and Mrs Andrews liable for unpaid invoices issued by the respondent AHS Construction Limited (“AHS”) and dismissed their counterclaim against AHS.1

Background

[2] The litigation arose as a result of work undertaken by AHS in respect of a proposed holiday home to be built for Mr and Mrs Andrews at Pahoia Road Whakamārama, near Tauranga. There is no real dispute as to the factual background and I adopt Judge Kelly’s summary:

[5] On 17 March 2018 the defendants, who are based at the Gold Coast, Australia, went into AHS’s showroom in Te Puna and inquired about building a holiday house on their property at Pahoia Road, Whakamarama, Tauranga. This was a chance ‘off the street’ meeting, the Andrews seeing the AHS showroom from a café across the street.

[6] It was proposed by the Andrews that a house designed by the Andrews’ Australian architect Hamilton Hayes Henderson (HHH) be built on a site the Andrews had already purchased. The Andrews were looking for a New Zealand builder to take the concept design plans prepared by HHH and to translate these into working drawings necessary for obtaining building consent.

[7] During this discussion Mr Paul Williams, the Director of AHS, told the Andrews that standard homes in New Zealand costs $2,500 - $3,000/m2; that the show room they were in was about $3,000 – 3,500/m2; and that a bespoke home was in the range of $3,500 - $4,000/m2.

[8] The Andrews arranged for the HHH concept plans to be sent to AHS and a further meeting was convened on 20 March 2018 with the expectation that the Andrews would engage AHS to prepare the necessary drawings, obtain consent and thereafter, build the property. The 18-page plan package provided by HHH was substantial and consisted of a dimensioned site plan, floor plans, elevations, cross sections, 3D coloured external elevations and a schedule of internal and external finishes.

[9] At this meeting, the Andrews say that based on the plans and information provided by HHH, AHS confirmed the price range of $3,000 - $4,000/m2 for building the house. The Andrews also say that AHS understood the Andrews’ budget to be $1.5 million. As the property was to be 441m2, at $3,000 -
$4,000/m2 the total build…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Andrews v AHS Construction Limited

Details

AGLC: Andrews v AHS Construction Limited [2024] NZHC 937
Case: [2024] NZHC 937
Decision Date: 26 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appellants, Daniel and Glenda Andrews, appealed a decision of the District Court against them, finding them liable for unpaid invoices issued by the respondent, AHS Construction Limited, and dismissing their counterclaim against AHS. The District Court had found that there was a contract between the parties for the design work and for the site works, and that there was no actionable misrepresentation, misleading or deceptive conduct and no breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. The High Court found that the appeal should be dismissed and AHS was entitled to costs. The Court found that there was a contract for the design work and for the site works, that there was no actionable misrepresentation, no misleading or deceptive conduct and no breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act. The Court noted that the District Court had reached the same conclusion and that the evidence supported the District Court's findings. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders