IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV 2018-404-002107
[2023] NZHC 1155
BETWEEN BODY CORPORATE 207624
Plaintiff
AND
GRIMSHAW & CO
Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
D R Bigio QC, A G Holden and A J McCombie for the Plaintiff L Taylor QC, P J L Hunt, R J Scott and J T Neville-Smith for the Defendant
Judgment:
15 May 2023
JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J
(Quantum of damages)
This judgment was delivered by me on 15 May 2023 at 3.00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
…………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors/Counsel:
D R Bigio QC, Auckland Wilson Harle, Auckland McElroys, Auckland
BODY CORPORATE 207624 v GRIMSHAW & CO (Quantum of damages) [2023] NZHC 1155 [15 May 2023]
Introduction
[1] In my judgment1 I directed that damages be calculated in accordance with the methodologies prescribed in the judgment and a joint memorandum be filed. I indicated that I would then make orders on the papers as to the quantum of damages.
[2] I thank counsel for the joint memorandum dated 12 May 2023 and now make orders as to the quantum of damages.
Quantum of damages awarded
[3] The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for total damages of $3,268,201.14, comprising:
(a)costs of $306,985.58 related to the interpleader;
(b)increased costs of cladding system of $380,903.00;
(c)costs escalation of $2,803,110.90;
(d)pre-construction increased consultant fees of $31,316.88;
(e)post-construction increased façade engineering fees of $7,053.74;
(f)post construction increased other consultants’ fees of $92,271.02;
(g)increased consent fees of $27,486.00;
(h)increased insurance costs of $94,683.02;
(i) less interest earned that would not have been earned of $475,609.00.
1 Body Corporate 207624 v Grimshaw & Co [2023] NZHC 979 at [592].
[4] I note the orders at [591](d) of my judgment, in relation to calculation of interest, stand.
Tahana J
- AGLC
- Body Corporate 207624 v Grimshaw & Co [2023] NZHC 1155
- Case
- [2023] NZHC 1155
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was to ascertain the precise quantum of damages owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. This involved a detailed assessment of various components, including costs related to the interpleader, increased costs of the cladding system, costs escalation, pre and post-construction consultant fees, increased consent fees, increased insurance costs, and interest that would not have been earned. The court had to meticulously evaluate each element based on the submissions and evidence provided by both parties.
In delivering the judgment, Justice Tahana considered the joint memorandum submitted by the parties and calculated the total damages owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant was liable for a total of $3,268,201.14, which included various components such as costs related to the interpleader, increased costs of the cladding system, costs escalation, and other specified expenses. The court also accounted for the interest that would not have been earned, which was to be deducted from the total damages. The judgment detailed each component of the damages, ensuring a comprehensive and precise calculation.
The final orders of the court were that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a total of $3,268,201.14, with specific breakdowns provided for each component of the damages. The court's detailed assessment provided clarity and finality to the quantum of damages, ensuring that the plaintiff received appropriate compensation for the losses incurred due to the defendant's negligence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.