Carrington v Easton - [2013] NZHC 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2009-004-002616 [2013] NZHC 2023

BETWEEN BRETT MARTIN CARRINGTON & NICOLETTE JANE CARRINGTON Plaintiffs

ANDDAVID JAMES EASTON (FORMERLY DAVID JAMES FOWKE)
First Defendant
AUCKLAND COUNCIL Second Defendant
DANDO CONTRACTORS LIMITED (in liquidation), (withdrawn)
Third Defendant
ROOF IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED (withdrawn)
Fourth Defendant

ANDAUCKLAND COUNCIL First Third Party

DANDO CONTRACTORS LIMITED (in liquidation), (withdrawn)
Second Third Party
COLIN EWAN HOLMES Third Third Party
ROOF IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED (withdrawn)
Fourth Third Party
NICK LETICA BUILDING SUPPLIES LIMITED (discontinued)
Fifth Third Party
QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED (discontinued)
Sixth Third Party
GARETH JONES Seventh Third Party

CARRINGTON v EASTON [2013] NZHC 2023 [9 August 2013]

AARON RUDD Eighth Third Party

Hearing: 22-25 July 2013

Appearances: J A McKay for Plaintiffs and Auckland Council
First Defendant in Person
P McGrath for Third Third Party R Mark for Seventh Third Party Eighth Third Party in Person

Judgment: 9 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 August 2013 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High
Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Chapman Tripp, Auckland
Metro Law, Auckland

Copy to: RP McGrath, Auckland
R Mark, Kerikeri
Defendants

Introduction

[1] This case is about allocating responsibility for defective building work at the Carringtons’ home, 26 Ellerton Road, Mount Eden, Auckland. The Carringtons sue David James Easton (also known as David James Fowke). They say he was the head contractor and is primarily liable for the defective workmanship.

[2] In turn Mr Easton has issued third party notices to and seeks contribution from the Auckland Council; Mr Holmes, an architectural draughtsman; and Messrs Jones and Rudd, both of whom are carpenters who worked with Mr Easton on the job. Auckland Council has a cross-claim against Mr Easton.

[3] Claims and cross-claims involving other parties have either been settled or withdrawn.

The Carringtons’ claim against Mr Easton

[4] The subject property is a 1920’s two-storey weatherboard home. The Carringtons have owned it for some time. In 2001 they decided to renovate it to make it a better home for their family. The first stage was to extend the front part of the house to include a garage, a master bedroom, an en suite and walk-in wardrobe, hallway and reconfigure two other bedrooms (the renovation work). They engaged Mr Holmes to obtain a building consent from the Auckland Council (Council) for the renovation work. Mr Holmes prepared and submitted plans and specifications to the Council. On 13 June 2001 the Council issued a building consent.

[5] Mr Easton also lived in Mt Eden and was recommended to the Carringtons by people who had used him. In the latter part of 2001 and early January 2002 Mr Easton submitted estimates to the Carringtons for the renovation work.

[6] The last estimate was for $149,359.50 for the stage one work. It included site works, carpentry, joinery, GIB shopping, drainlaying, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing and coverings and tiling. Although no written contract was ever executed, the Carringtons engaged…

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 Carrington v Easton

Details

AGLC: Carrington v Easton [2013] NZHC 2023
Case: [2013] NZHC 2023
Decision Date: 9 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carrington v Easton involved a dispute regarding the responsibility for defective building work at the Carringtons’ home. The Carringtons sought damages from David James Easton, who they claimed was the head contractor responsible for the defects. In turn, Mr Easton sought contribution from various third parties, including the Auckland Council, an architectural draughtsman (Mr Holmes), and two carpenters (Messrs Jones and Rudd). The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry. The court found that the building work carried out by Mr Easton was indeed defective, and he was primarily liable for the defects. The court rejected Mr Easton’s claims for contribution against the Auckland Council, Mr Holmes, and Messrs Jones and Rudd. The Carringtons were awarded damages against Mr Easton, including interest and general damages for stress and inconvenience. The court also awarded costs to the Carringtons and other parties involved in the proceedings.

Orders