Body Corporate 346799 v LNZ International Co Limited

Case [2017] NZHC 961


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-6290 [2017] NZHC 961

BETWEEN

BODY CORPORATE 346799

First Plaintiff

HA THI HOANG & ORS Second Plaintiffs

AND

KNZ INTERNATIONAL CO LIMITED First Defendant

BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS (NZ) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Second Defendant

… continued
Teleconference: 11 May 2017

Counsel:

G B Lewis for Plaintiffs
D J Chisholm QC and R D Butler for First Defendant
D T Broadmore for Second Defendant
S A Thodey and S B Mitchell for Fifth Defendant

Judgment:

22 March 2017

Supplementary

Judgment:

12 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 May 2017 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

BODY CORPORATE 346799 v KNZ INTERNATIONAL CO LIMITED [2017] NZHC 961 [12 May 2017]

FAÇADE DESIGN SERVICES LIMITED Third Defendant

PBS CONTRACTING LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Fourth Defendant (Discontinued)

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Fifth Defendant

BOSTIK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Sixth Defendant (Discontinued)

STEPHEN MITCHELL ENGINEERS LIMITED

First Third Party (Discontinued)

STEPHEN MITCHELL
Second Third Party (Discontinued)

CITY DESIGN LIMITED
Third Third Party (Discontinued)

DAVID LEE
Fourth Third Party (Discontinued)

DAVID JAMES FORSTER
Fifth Third Party (Discontinued)

TRISTAN D’ARCY HARVEY-SMITH Sixth Third Party (Discontinued)

WILLIS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Seventh Third Party (Discontinued)

RONALD CHARLES HANLEY Eighth Third Party

[1]      By my judgment of 22 March 2017:1

(a)      judgment was given for the plaintiffs in their claims against the first defendant, KNZ International Co Limited (KNZ) and the second defendant, Brookfield Multiplex Constructions (NZ) Limited (In Liquidation) (Multiplex); and

(b)      judgment was given for the fifth defendant, Auckland City Council

(the Council) on its cross-claims against KNZ and Multiplex.

[2]      The  judgment  issued  after  a  formal  proof  hearing.    A second  judgment

dealing with costs on the Council’s cross-claims was issued on 24 March 2017.2

[3]      KNZ had filed a cross-claim against Multiplex on 8 May 2013.  It has taken no steps in the proceedings since June 2016.  The judgments of 22 March and

24 March 2017 do not dispose of KNZ’s cross-claim.

[4]      KNZ  seeks  to  have  its  first  cause  of  action  in  its  cross-claim  against Multiplex seeking contribution or indemnity disposed of.  This cause of action can still be advanced separately by KNZ.

Thomas J

Solicitors:

Grimshaw and Co, Auckland for Plaintiffs

Morrison Mallett, Auckland for First Defendant

Buddle Findlay, Auckland for Second Defendant

Heaney and Partners, Auckland for Fifth Defendant

1      Body Corporate 346799 v KNZ International Co Limited [2017] NZHC 511.

2      Body Corporate 346799 v KNZ International Co Limited [2017] NZHC 543.

Details
AGLC
Body Corporate 346799 v LNZ International Co Limited [2017] NZHC 961
Case
[2017] NZHC 961
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiffs, Body Corporate 346799 and Ha Thi Hoang & Others, brought an action against the defendants, KNZ International Co Limited and Brookfield Multiplex Constructions (NZ) Limited (In Liquidation), along with other parties, seeking damages for defects in the construction of a building. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were responsible for various defects in the building that caused significant damage and inconvenience. The Auckland City Council was also involved in the proceedings as a fifth defendant.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs could hold the defendants liable for the defects in the construction and, if so, to what extent. The court had to determine whether the defendants breached their contractual obligations and, if so, whether this breach resulted in the defects claimed by the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court considered the applicability of various statutory provisions and common law principles to the facts of the case.

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against KNZ and Multiplex for the defects in the building. The court found that KNZ and Multiplex were responsible for the defects and had breached their contractual obligations. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs for the cost of rectifying the defects, along with other consequential losses. The court also dismissed the cross-claims made by the Council against KNZ and Multiplex.

This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that building projects are completed to the required standard and that contractual obligations are met. The court's judgment provides a clear precedent for future cases involving construction defects and contractual disputes. The plaintiffs were awarded damages, and the defendants were held liable for the defects in the building.

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.