Gerrie v New Vision Properties Limited

[2024] NZHC 3660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-561

[2024] NZHC 3660

UNDER

The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 and the Building Act 2004

IN THE MATTER

of a breach of contract for the construction of a house

BETWEEN

MATTHEW PAUL GERRIE AND KIRSTY FRANCES WEIR

Plaintiffs

AND

NEW VISION PROPERTIES LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing:	28 November 2024
Appearances:	M Freeman for Plaintiffs
Judgment:	4 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

Table of Contents

Para Nos

Introduction  [1]

The requirements of formal proof  [5]

Background  [9]

The Contract  [11]

Progress of the building work  [18]
Cost of completion  [53]

The claim  [58]

GERRIE AND WEIR v NEW VISION PROPERTIES LIMITED [2024] NZHC 3660 [4 December 2024]

First cause of action repudiation/breach of the Contract  [61]

Repudiation under s 36 of the CCLA  [65]

Breach under s 37 of the CCLA  [71]

Damages  [83]

Second cause of action—breach of statutory warranties  [95]

Deposit  [106]

Interest and costs  [111]

Orders  [113]

Introduction

[1]                  Dr Matthew Gerrie and Dr Kirsty Weir purchased a section from the defendant, New Vision Properties Ltd (NVP), a builder/developer. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir were required to contract with NVP to build a house on the section. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir entered a building contract with NVP (the Contract).

[2]                  Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir terminated the Contract, for repudiation and breach, on 31 May 2024.

[3]                  Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir filed and served a statement of claim on 26 August 2024. No statement of defence has been filed by NVP in the time specified in the notice of proceeding accompanying the statement  of  claim.  Both  Dr Gerrie  and Dr Weir have filed affidavits setting out the background to the claim. An affidavit confirming service of the Court documents on NVP has also been filed.1

[4]Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir now seek formal proof of the claim.

The requirements of formal proof

[5]                  Rule 15.9 of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) provides for the formal proof of claims. This is available where the defendant does not file a statement of

1      An affidavit of service of the statement of claim and notice of proceeding must be filed before judgment by default can be sealed; High Court Rules 2016, r 15.4.

defence in accordance with the timeframe required by the notice of proceeding and the plaintiff seeks judgment by default for other than a liquidated demand.

[6]                  The plaintiff must, before or at the formal proof hearing, file affidavit evidence establishing, to a Judge’s satisfaction, each cause of action relied on and, if damages are sought, providing sufficient information to enable the Judge to calculate and fix the damages.2

[7]                  The relevant principles in relation to formal proof under r 15.9 of the Rules were considered by Duffy J in Ferreira v Stockinger.3 Her Honour said:

[33]      Now r 15.9 of the High Court Rules applies to a formal proof hearing when no statement of defence has been filed and the plaintiff seeks judgment by default for other than a liquidated demand, which is the case here. This rule provides a mandatory procedure: “it does not involve the immediate entry of judgment by default”.

[34]      Under r 15.9(4) a plaintiff must establish to a Judge’s satisfaction each cause of action relied on and, if damages are sought, provide sufficient information to enable the Judge to calculate and fix the damages. The affidavit evidence required by r 15.9(4) should not include evidence that the Court could not receive if objection was raised by the defendant.

[35]      When it comes to the extent to which the plaintiff’s evidence is required to satisfy a Judge under r 15.5(4) the presence of r 15.5(5) gives some indication of what may be required. Rule 15.5(5) permits a Judge to direct a deponent of an affidavit to attend the Court to give additional evidence. The fact the rules make provision for a Judge hearing a formal proof to hear from witnesses whose evidence has obviously not been challenged by an opposing party suggests to me that the level at which a Judge is required to satisfy herself regarding the plaintiff’s evidence is much the same as it would be if. the proceeding had gone to trial. This view of r 15.9 is consistent with the observation of Kós J in Neumayer that the r 15.9 procedure may not provide any advantage over  allowing matters to run to trial. The  view that I take of  r 15.9 is also consistent with the very helpful discussion of the earlier version of r 15.9 in Chen v Zhong, where Wylie J makes it clear that in a claim for unliquidated damages where no statement of defence has been filed, it does not necessarily follow that allegations of fact made in the statement of claim are deemed to be admitted.

[36]      On the other hand in a formal proof hearing, the plaintiff is only required to prove a cause of action so far as the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not required to engage with any matters of affirmative defences, set-off or counter-claim.

2      Rule 15.9(4).

3      Ferreira v Stockinger [2015] NZHC 2916 (Footnotes omitted). This approach was adopted in

Wulff v Demarco [2021] NZHC 3110 at [79], and Roebuck v Liddle [2022] NZHC 2016 at [10].

[8]                  It is evident that formal proof is not a rubber stamp exercise, rather the plaintiff must satisfy the Court of the balance of probabilities as to each of the elements of the cause of action to establish liability and the quantum of damages claimed.4

Background

[9]                  In May 2021 Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir purchased a section from NVP. It was a term of the contract for the sale and purchase of the section that they would engage NVP to build a house on the property but that was to be negotiated as a separate building contract.

[10]              The directors of NVP are Anshul Kaushal and Simon Dobbs. Mr Dobbs is a licensed building practitioner and Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir understood that he would be the lead builder under the Contract. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir say that Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs were confident in their ability to deliver a high-end product.

The Contract

[11]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir entered into the Contract with NVP on 27 July 2021. The  Contract   is   a   fixed   price   contract   for   $2,370,450   including   GST   (the Contract Price). As part of the negotiation of the Contract, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir engaged a quantity surveying firm, Rider Levett Bucknall, to assess the cost of the build against NVP’s quote. Rider Levett Bucknall’s assessment accorded with the Contract Price.

[12]              Before entering into the Contract, NVP provided Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir with a schedule of stage payments which explained how the Contract Price was to be paid in instalments. The stage payments in the schedule were included in the Contract with the only change being that stage 5 in the schedule was split into two stages, with excavation being the fifth stage and foundations being the sixth stage.

[13]              The stage payments required Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir to pay $402,976.50 before the building work commenced and appeared to front load costs significantly compared to Rider Levett Bucknall’s report. However, the schedule also included an explanation

4      Adventurer Hobson Ltd v Cockery [2020] NZHC 675, [2020] 2 NZLR 544 at [39].

about how each stage payment was going to be used to fund other aspects of the build at later stages, which made sense to Dr Gerrie  and Dr Weir  and  reassured them.   Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs assured Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir that they would complete the building within 12 months from the start date of 2 August 2021. A completion date of 2 August 2022 was recorded in the Contract accordingly. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir negotiated and then agreed with NVP that if the build had not achieved Code of Compliance within 15 months from the issuing of the building consent, the Contract Price would reduce by $500 per week until the certificate was issued.

[14]The Contract provided for Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir to pay a deposit of

$82,965.75. The deposit was not part of the Contract Price but was to be held by their lawyers as security to be used to pay towards the final stage payment or as provided for in the Contract in other specified circumstances (not relevant to the present case).

[15]              On 26 July 2021 Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir paid $794,000 into their lawyers’ trust account, which was the price for  the  section  ($710,000)  and  the  deposit  under the Contract of $82,965.75 (and a little extra to cover legal costs).

[16]              That deposit is still held by their lawyers, ARL Lawyers (ARL). ARL have advised Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir that despite the Contract being cancelled, they cannot release the deposit to them unless NVP agrees or there is a court order to this effect.

[17]              Between 28 July 2021 and 13 December 2021, invoices for stages 1–4 were issued and paid. This was at the consent stage, before building work started. The building consent for the house was issued on 10 December 2021.

Progress of the building work

[18]              Excavation work commenced shortly after the building consent was issued. Building work initially was quite slow.  NVP had  been  open  with  Dr Gerrie  and Dr Weir that they wanted to complete another large-scale build they were working on first. However, work progressed to the point where foundations, framing and the roof had been installed, between December 2021 and 17 July 2023. The roof installation completed stage 8 of the Contract.

[19]              The payments under the Contract for stages 5–8 were invoiced by NVP and paid by Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir in line with achievement of project milestones.

[20]              During the progress of the build, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir also agreed to, and paid for, several variations totalling $271,012 (including GST). These related to extensions to the driveway wall and main timber wall, an additional retaining wall for the garden area, an upgrade from double glazing to triple glazing on all glazed joinery, additional windows, additional retaining walls, additional excavation and removal of soil, shower rebates added to the bathroom and curtain rebate variations.

[21]              Although the variations for extra excavation and retaining walls were completed, the variations for the windows, curtain rebates and shower rebates have not been completed, as these relate to later stages of the Contract once the house is closed in.

[22]              The  building  work  failed   its   subfloor   and   drainage   inspections   on  27 June 2022. It failed the block wall tanking inspection again on 7 November 2022 and again on 11 November 2022. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir say they were told that this was due to product changes and documentation to be provided later. They were reassured by NVP that the building work was progressing well and there were no concerns.

[23]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir felt increasingly concerned, however, with the rate of progress, as it had taken 18 months to get to stage 8, which was slower than they had expected. Dr Weir states that her recollection is that, during the build, building progress was sporadic with a lot of work leading up to a payment milestone and then no work at all for a long period after a payment milestone. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir had discussions with NVP about this, asking for a programme of works and progress updates. They say they were reassured that work was on track, but nothing changed, and they were not provided with any programme of work.

[24]              In January 2023 Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir met with Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs to discuss the slow progress of the build. NVP committed to giving the project its total

focus from February 2023 and delivering stage 9 (house closed in) by winter 2023. This discussion is recorded in an email Dr Weir sent to NVP.

[25]              The building failed its pre-wrap inspection again on 27 June 2023, 4 July 2023 and 6 July 2023. The failed items record that the work was still to be completed.

[26]              By October 2023 the only visible progress in stage 9 was that the sarking had been installed to the external walls. The house was not closed in, and stage 9 had not been achieved.

[27]              On 11 October 2023, Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs  met  with  Dr Gerrie  and Dr Weir and told them that NVP was having serious cashflow issues. This was despite all of the payments Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir had made to them. NVP wanted to change the payment arrangement so that stage 9, and further stage payments, were paid at more regular intervals. At that meeting, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir expressed their immediate concern to get the windows installed so the house could be closed in. They also noted they were concerned about paying NVP anything outside of the contractual stage payments. An agreement was reached at the meeting that certain progress payments could replace the stage payments for stages 9, 10, and 11, to assist NVP’s cashflow. These progress payments were to be made at weeks 0, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 19.

[28]              NVP   invoiced   Dr Gerrie   and    Dr Weir    for    week 0    ($70,000)    on 16 October 2023. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir paid that invoice on the understanding that the joinery was being shipped and that NVP would pay the deposit to their kitchen provider to secure their chosen slab, as agreed for week 0.

[29]              After paying the invoice for week 0, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir had paid NVP a total of $1,929,243.50, being stage payments 1–8 (totalling $1,588,231.50);5 the week 0 invoice ($70,000); and agreed variations ($271,012).

5      I record that in Dr Weir’s affidavit she indicates she and Dr Gerrie had paid $1,588,201.50 in stage payments 1–8. It appears they have paid $1,588,231.50: The invoice for the fourth stage payment dated 13 December 2021 indicates $118,552.50 was the amount to pay, and was paid, when in fact the Contract only required $118,522.50 to be paid. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir have overpaid $30 under the Contract. However, they seek the recovery of $1,588,201.50 and the claim proceeds on this basis pursuant to r 5.32 of the High Court Rules 2016.

[30]              NVP did not progress the Contract after week 0. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir became concerned that the building had not been closed in and framing continued to be exposed to the elements. They were aware that that would be a problem if left for too long because the framing could deteriorate and might need to be replaced.

[31]              In February 2024 after there had been no progress on site for five months, NVP informed Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir that they were subcontracting the building work to another company, NH Construction Ltd. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir agreed to that.

[32]              NH Construction Ltd came on site in February 2024. Almost immediately after starting on site, NH Construction Ltd advised Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir that they were not able to progress the building work because the wall framing was significantly out of tolerance. Issues were also identified with the way the external wall timber, steel framing and RAB board sarking had been installed. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir met with Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs about this on 15 and 18 March 2024. Mr Dobbs agreed to meet NH Construction Ltd onsite on 19 March 2024 to review the defects. Dr Weir says that on 20 March 2024, Mr Kaushal confirmed in a telephone call to her that NVP would undertake any necessary remediation.

[33]              On 21 March 2024, NH Construction Ltd provided Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir with a written summary of the identified defective work. This indicated that, to remedy the defective work, all the internal framing would need to be reconfigured and that could also  mean some of the  plumbing  and electrical  work would need to  be redone.   Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir emailed Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs on 23 March 2024 to formally raise their concerns as follows:

(a)NVP  was  apparently  seriously  compromised  with  its   creditors (Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir raised this because they were concerned that nearly every subtrade on their build that they had spoken to had raised the grievance that NVP had not paid them);

(b)the framing needed to be remedied before the Contract work could progress;

(c)there had been no builders undertaking work on the site for some time; and

(d)NVP appeared to be diverting its resources elsewhere.

[34]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir asked NVP for a written explanation and supporting evidence by 5 April 2024 that:

(a)NVP was able to resolve its creditor issues;

(b)NVP had sufficient funds to address the remedial issues and they could commence remedial work urgently; and

(c)once remediation issues were resolved then NVP was in a position to complete the build within a reasonable timeframe and to a high quality of workmanship.

[35]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir sought a meeting with Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs to discuss the situation but were unable to arrange this. NVP did not reply to their concerns by 5 April 2024 and Dr Weir emailed them again on 5 April, reiterating their concerns. In this email, Dr Weir  asked NVP whether they would agree to her and   Dr Gerrie engaging directly with NH Construction Ltd to commence the remedial work. She also raised whether the Contract could be mutually terminated. She sought a response from NVP by 12 pm on Wednesday 10 April 2024.

[36]              NVP responded in an email dated 9 April 2024 that they were committed to “quality work as per our contract” and would “fix any issues identified” but also asserted that they had undertaken variation work which had not been paid for. NVP sent Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir an invoice for $335,223.86 (Invoice 139).

[37]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir had not agreed on any variations that they had not already paid for and, in their view, Invoice 139 appeared to be part of the Contract Price rather than variations. On 11 April 2024, they sought an urgent meeting with Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs.

[38]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir met with Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs on 12 April 2024. In notes made of the meeting, the following matters are recorded:

(a)Mr Kaushal and Mr Dobbs indicated that NVP had creditor issues and could not progress the Contract until they were settled. They said that they had not paid for the joinery for the house and so were not able to supply it to Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir.

(b)Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir suggested again that the Contract be terminated by mutual consent. They explained  why  they  disagreed  with Invoice 139 and proposed that it be cancelled.

[39]              Dr Weir was particularly concerned that NVP had not paid for the joinery. She and Dr Gerrie had paid NVP for the joinery, including an upgrade to triple glazing. The fourth stage payment and the sixth stage payment, specified in the stage payment schedule, were specifically earmarked for paying for the cost of the joinery and its delivery to site. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir had paid the week 0 invoice because NVP advised that the joinery was being shipped.

[40]              Invoice 139 was cancelled by NVP on 14 April 2024, without any further correspondence from NVP.

[41]              The immediate concern of Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir was getting the house closed in and weathertight. They spoke to Nathan Hope, the director of NH Construction Ltd, and asked whether NH Construction Ltd would contract directly with them to remedy the defective work and progress the building work at least until  it was closed in.   NH Construction Ltd agreed and provided a quote dated 14 April 2024 to undertake remedial work in respect of the framing for $145,408.30. This did not include the cost of any other subtrades required as part of the remediation work.

[42]              At this point Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir engaged Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts Lawyers (TDSL) to deal with NVP. On 18 April 2024, TDSL wrote to NVP setting out the concerns of Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir that the building work was left exposed to the elements and proposing that the Contract be cancelled by mutual consent, with

rights reserved. NVP was also informed that Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir were engaging another builder to progress the building work to the point where the house was closed in and weathertight, and to undertake any necessary remedial work. On 22 April 2024, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir accepted NH Construction Ltd’s quote and engaged them to undertake the remedial work.

[43]              On 3 May 2024, NVP’s lawyer wrote to TDSL, blaming Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir for NVP’s cashflow problems and advising that NVP would only agree to a mutual termination of the Contract if they paid NVP more money. That letter did not respond to, or object to, the fact that Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir were engaging another builder to undertake the remedial work. TDSL wrote to NVP’s lawyer advising that Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir did not agree to pay any more and asking whether NVP was able to progress the Contract.

[44]On 9 May 2024, NVP’s lawyer emailed TDSL, attaching an invoice for

$169,773.67 as a “payment claim”. The invoice refers to and attaches several documents advising, amongst other things, that NVP was adding a 20 per cent margin to the items in the invoice. However, it did not explain why these were variations (which were not agreed to) or why an invoice was being sent in addition to the agreed stage payments.

[45]              TDSL issued a “payment schedule” on  14 May  2024,  advising  NVP that Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir did not agree to pay them anything further. On 16 May 2024, TDSL wrote to NVP’s lawyer, providing further details around the defective framing and raising joinery as a major issue.

[46]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir had been trying to arrange for the joinery to be released to them. They were told by the supplier in Poland that it was held at the dock in Wellington and could not be released because NVP had not paid the manufacturer— even though Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir had paid NVP for it in full.

[47]              Several issues with the joinery had been brought to the attention of Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir and were raised in a letter from TDSL to NVP’s lawyer on 16 May 2024:

(a)NVP’s architect had advised that the joinery might not meet the building code standards for the wind zone.

(b)Further measurements onsite of the window aperture framing revealed that  the  dimensions  were  wrong  for   some   of   the   windows.  NH Construction Ltd checked this and confirmed that the windows did not match the dimensions and that therefore the joinery could not be installed without substantial modification of the framing.

[48]              Dr Weir explains that she and Dr Gerrie are now resigned to the fact that the joinery will never be released to them and could not safely be used even if it was.   Dr Gerrie says that he had two conversations with NVP’s architect relating to the joinery and whether it would meet the building code requirements for the wind zone. The first was about problems with the large feature window meeting performance requirements for the wind zone, and the second concerned proposed modifications which might have improved the situation. Dr Gerrie explains that NVP chose the joinery and  promoted  it  as  being  high-end  European  joinery.  However,  after  Dr Gerrie’s conversations with NVP’s architect about his reservations that the joinery would not perform, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir consider it to be wasted expenditure. They have now sourced completely new joinery from an alternative New Zealand supplier.

[49]              On 22 May 2024, the Wellington City Council issued a further inspection site notice, again failing the pre-wrap inspection. That notice confirms the presence of defective work.

[50]              On 31 May 2024, NVP’s lawyer wrote to TDSL saying that NVP was prevented from carrying out the building work under the Contract due to the refusal by Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir to pay “for the variation”.

[51]              At that stage, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir considered that NVP had no intention or ability to complete the work in accordance with the Contract and on 31 May 2024, they gave written notice terminating the Contract.

[52]              Since cancelling the Contract, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir have obtained a report on the  condition  of  the  framing.  A  letter  from  their  building  surveyor  dated  28 June 2024 confirms that the framing had been left exposed for too long with the timber suffering from leeching, mould staining and the growth of fungi. The report identifies that some of the timbers returned moisture readings reaching 90 per cent.

Cost of completion

[53]              After cancelling the Contract with NVP, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir expected to engage NH Construction Ltd to be their builders and complete the building work. On 22 August 2024, NH Construction Ltd provided a quote for $2,101,123.46 to complete the building work. The quote includes around $109,245.65 for additional remedial work required that was not covered by the quote given by NH Construction Ltd for remedial work in April 2024. Dr Weir explains that the additional work was required because of the condition of the timber framing as a result of its long exposure to the elements.

[54]Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir express their shock at this figure. They have paid NVP

$1,929,243.50,6 some of which was for later stages of the Contract which have not even started, and for joinery that was never supplied. They say they do not know what NVP has done with their money. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir have been told by several subtrades who worked on their house that they have not been paid.

[55]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir have had NH Construction Ltd’s quote for completion assessed by a quantity surveyor. As at 30 October 2024, that estimate is $2,278,000, about $177,000 more than the quote  from  NH  Construction  Ltd.  Dr Gerrie  and Dr Weir were unable to sign a contract with NH Construction Ltd as sadly its director, Mr Hope, died unexpectedly.

[56]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir explain that they are seeking to hold NVP liable for, at least:

6      As mentioned, Dr Weir’s affidavit states the plaintiffs have paid $1,929,213.50 to NVP already. However, as explained above in n 5 there was a typographical error and therefore the total amount paid is in fact $1,929,243.50.

(a)The cost to complete the Contract. They have used the quote from  NH Construction Ltd as the cost and subtracted what was left on the Contract with NVP, reaching a cost to complete on that basis of

$1,420,874.96 (as set out in sch 2 of the statement of claim). However, if the higher estimate from the quantity surveyor is used, then the cost to complete adjusts to $1,597,751.50.

(b)The cost of the remedial work undertaken by NH Construction Ltd ($145,408.30). Dr Weir explains that this covers the costs she can easily quantify and that she has not attempted to itemise all costs paid to various subtrades and consultants as part of the remedial work.

(c)The money paid to NVP for joinery that was never received in addition to the Contract Price. That is the upgrade to triple glazing ($84,050). Dr Weir explains that there is also wasted expenditure in relation to shower rebates ($4,600) and curtain rebates ($24,414.50). These are not included in the claim but if they were to be taken into account would increase wasted expenditure to $113,064.50.

(d)The return of the deposit from ARL.

[57]              Dr Weir explains that NH Construction Ltd progressed the build to a stage where new joinery is installed and the house is about 95 per cent cladding installed, so the house is now near to the closed in stage. Dr Weir in her second affidavit explains that the cost of new joinery is $189,343.74 including GST. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir intend to find a new builder to complete the house. Dr Weir says they must finish the house, otherwise they would have nothing at all to show for their time, energy and money. They remain hopeful that their home will be completed and look forward to living there when it is finished. Dr Weir says that this has been a very stressful situation for her and Dr Gerrie.

The claim

[58]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir bring two causes of action against NVP. The first is a claim for damages suffered as a result of NVP’s repudiation and substantial breaches of the Contract.

[59] The second cause of action relates to NVP’s breaches of its statutory warranties under s 362I of the Building Act 2004. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir say that the breach of warranties are substantial breaches under s 362N of the Building Act and that despite the breach of warranties being substantial breaches, and NVP being required to remedy them, it has not done so within a reasonable time. Accordingly, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir say they are entitled under s 362P to cancel the Contract and damages for the loss resulting from the breach of warranties.

[60]              The relief sought under each cause of action is the same. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir seek:

(a)judgment against NVP for damages as follows:

(i)$1,420,874.96 for the additional cost to complete the Contract;

(ii)$145,408.30 for the cost of the remedial work undertaken by NH Construction Ltd; and

(iii)$84,050 for the wasted expenditure.

(b)$82,965.75, being the return of the deposit;

(c)interest on the sums in (a) above under ss 10–12 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 from the date of judgment to the date of payment; and

(d)costs.

First cause of action repudiation/breach of the Contract

[61]              The first cause of action pleads that NVP repudiated the Contract and/or substantially breached the Contract, entitling them to cancel it and seek damages.

[62]Clause 21.2 of the Contract provides:

… the owner may cancel this contract if one or more of the following criteria have been satisfied:

(a)If the Owner has a right to cancel this contract under Part 2 Subpart 3 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 or any other statute in the circumstances in question.

(b)If any provision in this Contract expressly authorises the Owner to cancel in those circumstances.

(c)If the Builder has permanently and unequivocally abandoned the Project prior to the completion of the Building Work, or has become permanently and unequivocally incapable of complying with the Builder’s obligation under this Contract.

(d)If the Contract has become impossible to perform or has been otherwise frustrated in the sense contemplated by Part 2 Subpart 4 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, through no fault of the Owner or anyone under the Owner’s authority or control.

[63]              Counsel for Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir, Mr Freeman, submits that both cl 21.2(a) and (c) are applicable in the present case.

[64]              Relevant to cl 21.2(a) is the right to cancel a contract under ss 36 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). These sections provide:

36Party may cancel contract if another party repudiates it

(1)A party to a contract may cancel the contract if, by words or conduct, another party (B) repudiates the contract by making it clear that B does not intend to—

(a)perform B’s obligations under the contract; or

(b)complete the performance of B’s obligations under the contract.

(2)This section is subject to the rest of this subpart.

37Party may cancel contract if induced to enter into it by misrepresentation or if term is or will be breached

(1)A party to a contract may cancel it if—

(a)the party has been induced to enter into it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made by or on behalf of another party to the contract; or

(b)a term in the contract is breached by another party to the contract; or

(c)it is clear that a term in the contract will be breached by another party to the contract.

(2)If subsection (1)(a), (b), or (c) applies, a party may exercise the right to cancel the contract if, and only if,—

(a)the parties have expressly or impliedly agreed that the truth of the representation or, as the case may require, the performance of the term is essential to the cancelling party; or

(b)the effect of the misrepresentation or breach of the contract is, or, in the case of an anticipated breach, will be,—

(i)substantially to reduce the benefit of the contract to the cancelling party; or

(ii)substantially to increase the burden of the cancelling party under the contract; or

(iii)in relation to the cancelling party, to make the benefit or burden of the contract substantially different from that represented or contracted for.

(3)Subsection (1) is subject to the rest of this subpart, but does not limit section 36.

Repudiation under s 36 of the CCLA

[65]              Where there has been a repudiation of a contract the innocent party can either affirm or cancel the contract.7 A repudiation can occur where a contract is partly performed but there is an irrevocable indication that the repudiating party will not perform it further, or would only perform it further on substantially different terms than those imposed by the contract.8 The test for repudiation is an objective one—the Court will consider how a reasonable party would interpret the repudiating party’s conduct.9

7      Stephen Todd and Matthew Barber  Burrows,  Finn  and  Todd  on  the  Law  of  Contract  in New Zealand (7th ed, Lexis Nexis, 2022) at 699.

8      Jade Residential Ltd v Paul [2020] NZCA 477 at [49] citing Betham v Margetts [1996] 2 NZLR 708 (HC) at 711.

9 At [49].

[66]              Mr Freeman submits, and I agree, that repudiation of the Contract by NVP can be inferred from the following evidence:

(a)The failure to progress the building work from October 2023 to the date the Contract was terminated on 31 May 2024.

(b)NVP’s disclosure on 12 April 2024 that cash flow and debt issues prevented it from progressing the building work. Although the document in evidence is Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir’s record of what was discussed at the meeting, it was emailed to NVP and has not been contradicted.

(c)NVP’s position, as communicated through its lawyer, confirming that it has cash flow issues and advising that further work would depend on Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir agreeing to make a payment for “variations” which Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir had not agreed to.

(d)NVP does not have a right, contractual or otherwise, to claim variations to the Contract that were not agreed  to by Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir. The Contract specifically requires that both parties confirm any proposed variation in writing before it becomes part of the Contract. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir have paid for all variations that they agreed to.

[67]              Mr  Freeman  acknowledges  that  NVP’s   assertion,  as  illustrated  by  the   3 May 2024 letter from NVP’s lawyer, is that the extra contractual payment sought by NVP is a “deemed” variation due to deficiency in the design of the house. However, he submits, and I agree, that the Contract does not allow for “deemed” variations, and therefore there is no basis for imposing deemed variations on Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir. This is because:

(a)The Contract was  a  fixed  price  contract.  Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir  had inserted a term, agreed to by NVP, that there would be no variation to the Contract other than variations agreed in writing.

(b)NVP had commissioned the design, prior to Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir purchasing the section, and had full control over the plans and specifications. If there was any deficiency in the design that was at NVP’s risk. There is no contractual basis for passing that risk and cost on to Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir.

(c)The information NVP provided to support the “deemed” variation is vague. The variations were asserted by NVP on several different occasions with the amount sought being significantly different each time. There is no evidence of variation to the plans. It appears NVP was trying to claim cost overruns styled as variations and then the builder’s mark up on them. Cost overruns are at the risk of the builder under a fixed price contract.

(d)Even if NVP genuinely believed it was entitled to the extra contractual payment, it has not suspended the work in accordance with the Contract. To suspend the work required written notice under the Contract. Accordingly, NVP’s refusal to progress the building work unless payment was made still amounts to a repudiation.

[68]              To further illustrate the position, Mr Freeman refers to Jade Residential Ltd v Paul.10 That was a case involving a fixed price contract. The builder invoiced for stage payments for the “closed in stage” at a time when the owners considered the stage was not complete. The owners refused to pay. The builder suspended work on site. The owners cancelled the contract. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that the builder had repudiated the contract. That was because it was clear on the evidence that the builder did not intend to complete the contract unless a stage payment (which was in dispute) was paid. The builder purported to suspend work on the site, acting on its erroneous view of the contract. The Court of Appeal found that the builder’s conduct amounted to a partial repudiation under the contract and the owners were entitled to cancel under s 36 of the CCLA.11 The Court of Appeal

10     Jade Residential Ltd v Paul, above n 8.

11     At [62]–[63]. The Court of Appeal suggested that an analysis of partial repudiation under 36 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 may be unhelpful where a mistaken party decides to

also found that the builder’s breaches and threatened breaches of the contract substantially reduced the benefit of the contract to the owners, and they were therefore entitled to cancel the contract under s 37 of the CCLA.12

[69]              Mr Freeman submits that the repudiation in the present case can be analysed similarly. NVP’s communicated position was that it would not continue with the work (or could not continue with the work) unless a further substantial payment was made to it. In other words, on terms substantially different from the Contract.

[70]              The evidence outlined above satisfies me on the balance of probabilities that NVP has repudiated the Contract by making it clear it does not intend to perform (or complete the performance of) its  obligations  under  the  Contract.  Dr Gerrie  and Dr Weir are therefore entitled to cancel the Contract pursuant to s 36(1)(a) or (c) of the CCLA.

Breach under s 37 of the CCLA

[71]              There is a twofold test under s 37 of the CCLA: First, one of the criteria in subs (1) must apply, then, a party may exercise the right to cancel the contract if either of the two alternative tests in subs (2) is made out.

[72]              Mr Freeman submits that NVP has breached multiple obligations under cl 2 of the Contract, thus fulfilling the criterion in s 37(1)(b) that “a term in the contract is breached by another party to the contract”. Mr Freeman submits that cl 2 is an essential term of the Contract as it provides for the builder’s “primary obligations” under the Contract, therefore falling within s 37(2)(a).

[73]              I consider first whether NVP has breached a term of the Contract as required under s 37(1)(b) of the CCLA. Mr Freeman submits  that the building work under  the Contract:

perform the contract in accordance with their (incorrect) interpretation of the contract, instead favouring a simpler analysis under s 37.

12 At [68].

(a)was not carried out diligently, conscientiously and as soon as reasonably practicable (cl 2.2);

(b)was not carried out in a proper and competent manner, or with reasonable skill and care (cl 2.3(a)(i) and subcl (d)(i)); and

(c)has  not  been  completed  by  the  date  specified  in  the Contract  or in a reasonable time (cl 2.3(d)(ii)).

[74]Mr Freeman says this is demonstrated by the following actions of NVP:

(a)Negligent building work, both in terms of the defectively installed framing (which cost $145,408.30 to remediate) and  NVP’s  negligence in leaving  building  elements  exposed  to  the weather  for more than 12 months, allowing them to deteriorate.

(b)Failure to procure and supply the joinery and the failure to use payments earmarked for the joinery to pay for the joinery. The joinery was a significant feature of the build and was promoted as high-end European joinery. There is, in addition, the issue that the joinery was not suitable for the wind zone and was  the wrong  dimension  from the framing apertures.

(c)Failure to progress the building work within a reasonable timeframe. It is objectively unreasonable  that  a competent builder would not have a house closed in three years after the building consent was granted, and two years after the stated completion date in the Contract.

[75]              I am satisfied this evidence illustrates that NVP has breached the terms relating to NVP’s obligations under cls 2.2, 2.3(a)(i) and subcls (d)(i)–(ii) of the Contract.

[76]              The second part of the s 37 test under subs (2)(a) requires that the parties have expressly or impliedly agreed that the performance of the term (which is breached) is essential to the cancelling party. To determine if such a term is essential requires

assessing whether the promise or representation was of such importance to the promisee that they would not have entered into the contract without it.13

[77]              I am satisfied that the terms contained in cls 2.2, 2.3(a)(i) and subcls (d)(i)–(ii) of the Contract are essential terms to Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir. I note that cl 3 of the Contract provides for the owner’s primary obligations, which include the obligation to pay the price under the Contract. One would reasonably consider that performance of the terms in cls 2 and 3 are at the heart of the Contract for the parties. I consider that Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir would not have entered into the Contract without the specific terms in cls 2.2, 2.3(a)(i) and subcls (d)(i)–(ii) of the Contract.

[78]              I therefore conclude Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir are entitled to cancel the Contract under s 37(1)(b) and subs (2)(a) of the CCLA.

[79]              The alternative test under s 37(2)(b) requires, for an entitlement to cancel the contract, that any such breach of the Contract be substantial (in the sense it substantially reduces the benefit to or increases the burden of Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir, or substantially changes the nature of the bargain for them). The CCLA does not set out rules about how to quantify whether a breach has a substantial effect, nor has it defined what is meant by substantial. Instead, every case requires an assessment of the facts to determine whether a breach of contract is substantial.14

[80]              Mr Freeman submits that the matters in [74] above have, on a cumulative basis, substantially altered the benefit to  and burden of the Contract to Dr Gerrie and      Dr Weir. He submits that the Court should be left with the clear impression on the evidence that the  Contract went substantially wrong. NVP was supposed to deliver  a well-constructed house within a reasonable timeframe and Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir would pay the Contract Price of $2.37 million. What has occurred is that Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir have had to step in and essentially project manage the build to mitigate

13 Todd and Barber Burrows, Finn and Todd on the Law of Contract in New Zealand, above n 7, at  708  citing  Mana Property Trustee  Ltd  v  James Developments Ltd  [2010] NZSC 90, [2010] 3 NZLR 805 at [25].

14     Todd  and Barber  Burrows, Finn and Todd  on the  Law of Contract in New Zealand, above n 7,  at 721.

their loss, despite paying NVP almost $2 million. They have incurred significant further costs as a result.

[81]              I am satisfied on the evidence already outlined of the breach of the Contract by NVP. I am also satisfied that the benefit to Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir under the Contract is substantially reduced, its burden on them is increased, and that the nature of the bargain is substantially changed.15 On this basis, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir are entitled to cancel the Contract under s 37(1)(b) and subs (2)(b) of the CCLA.

[82]              The notice given on 31 May 2024 was therefore effective to terminate the Contract. While no party is obliged to perform it further, this does not affect the innocent party’s right to recover damages for repudiation or breach of the Contract.16

Damages

[83]              A breach of contract will always entitle the innocent party to pursue a claim for damages.17 Assessment of damages is a matter of fact. The general principle is that where loss is caused by breach of a term of a contract, the purpose of damages is to put the party whose rights have been violated in the same position, so far as money can do so, as if their rights had been observed. This approach secures the benefit expected under the contract.18

[84]              The proper measure of damages in this case is the cost to complete the building work. That puts Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir in the position, as far as money is able to, as if the Contract had been performed. That represents Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir’s loss of bargain. They contracted with NVP to build their house for $2.37 million (plus

$271,012 in variations) and have paid just under $2 million to NVP. NVP has not completed the building work as contracted.

15 Mr Freeman advanced an argument that if the case should be assessed in mathematical terms, then the breach could also be considered substantial, relying on Stott v Uplifting Homes Ltd [2023] NZHC 1514. In the circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to calculate in a mathematical manner the effect of the breach on Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir. An evaluation of all the facts is sufficient to establish the breach was substantial.

16     Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s 49.

17     Jade Residential Ltd v Paul, above n 8, at [37].

18     Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 11 at [23].

[85]              The unpaid balance of the Contract Price is reduced in accordance with the   cl 29.3 of the Contract, which provides that if the Code of Compliance certificate had not issued within 15 months from the issuing of the building consent, the Contract Price would reduce by $500 per week until the certificate was issued.

[86]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir had, at the time the statement of claim was filed, planned to continue to use NH Construction Ltd to complete the build and had obtained a quote from NH Construction Ltd, which quoted a cost to complete of

$2,101,123.46.

[87]              As explained, NH Construction Ltd is no longer able to undertake the work. However, an independent quantity surveyor has assessed the cost to complete at

$2,278,000.00. Mr Freeman submits, and I agree, this confirms that NH Construction’s quote reflects the market and is a sound basis on which to quantify damages.

[88]              In the circumstances, Mr Freeman suggests that it is open to the Court to assess the cost to complete by taking a median point between the quote and cost estimate as an appropriate measure of the cost to complete. I do not accept this is the correct approach. Rather, I consider that the appropriate cost to complete is the sum sought in the statement of claim, being the sum quoted by NH Construction Ltd.19

[89]              The loss of bargain is therefore $1,420,874.96, which is calculated by subtracting the unpaid balance of the Contract Price from the cost to complete (as calculated in [94(a)] below). That measure of damages would  put  Dr Gerrie  and  Dr Weir in the position they should have been had the Contract been performed, as far as money is able to.

[90]              The remedial costs of $145,408.30 in respect of the defective framing are known, and directly arise from NVP’s breach of the Contract. That is not captured in the cost to complete, or double counted, because Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir engaged

19 A plaintiff seeking judgment by default is entitled to such relief as is claimed in its statement of claim and incidental thereto but may not go beyond the pleadings: Terracon Industries Ltd v Body Corporate 462460 [2024] NZHC 2707 at [45] and [54] citing Xiao v Department of lnternal Affairs [2019] NZCA 326, [2019] 3 NZLR 622 at [49].

NH Construction Ltd to undertake that work, and it was undertaken,  before obtaining the quote to complete the build.

[91]              The wasted expenditure  claim is for the upgrade  cost for the triple glazing  as part of an agreed variation, being $84,050. This variation was paid for but never provided. That is not captured in the cost to complete, or double counted, because  Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir, in sourcing alternative joinery, have decided not to have triple glazing. Mr Freeman submits this can either be considered as contractual damages  or restitutionary relief under s 43 of the CCLA.

[92]              The Contract contains a limitation of liability clause (cl 22) which provides that:

22.1Unless and to the extent that this Contract expressly or by necessary implication provides otherwise:

(a)each party’s total liability to the other in respect of the Building Work, the Building, or this Contract, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, shall not in any event exceed the Final Contract Price; and

(b)neither party shall be liable to the other for any consequential, indirect, or special loss, damage, or injury of any kind whatsoever (and for the sake of clarity, a loss of the profits or revenues that the Builder would reasonably have expected to gain pursuant to this Contract but for the Owner’s default, shall not be deemed to be consequential, indirect or special).

[93]              Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir say that their claim does not transgress cl 22 of the Contract. The total amount claimed is less than the Contract Price, and the damages claimed are the direct loss from the repudiation and breach of the Contract. Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir do not seek to claim consequential indirect or special damages.

[94]              I am satisfied that the damages claimed by Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir as set out below are properly made out:

(a)       $1,420,874.96 for the additional cost of completion as calculated:

The final unpaid balance of the Contract Price:

Contract price	$2,370,450.00
Plus agreed variations	$271,012.00
Adjusted Contract price	$2,641,462.00
Less payments made	$1,929,213.50
Balance of Contract price	$712,248.50
Less reduction to contract price20	$32,000.00
Final unpaid balance of Contract price	$680,248.50
The additional cost of completion is:
Additional cost of completion:	$2,101,123.46
Less final unpaid balance of Contract Price:	$680,248.50
Additional Cost of Completion:	$1,420,874.96
(b)       $145,408.30 for the cost of the remedial	work undertaken	by
NH Construction Ltd; and
(c)       $84,050 for the wasted expenditure.

In total, these damages amount to $1,650,333.26 (the Judgment Sum).

Second cause of action—breach of statutory warranties

[95] The second cause of action is for breach of statutory warranties under the Building Act, and it substantially overlaps with the first cause of action.

20 As discussed above, this reduction is based on cl 29.3 of the Contract, which provides that if the build did not achieve Code of Compliance within 15 months from the issuing of the building consent, the Contract Price would reduce by $500 per week until the certificate was issued.

[96] Clause 2.3 of the Contract contains the builder’s warranties, and this includes, in the same terms, the implied warranties found in s 362I of the Building Act. Further, cl 21.2(a) of the Contract provides for cancellation under “any other statute”, which Mr Freeman submits would include the Building Act. Therefore, the Building Act can be treated as an alternative cause of action, and, in a formal proof context, Mr Freeman says that it is probably unnecessary. For completeness, I briefly address this claim below.

[97] As I found that there was a breach of the Contract under cls 2.2, 2.3(a)(i) and subcls (d)(i)–(ii), which corresponds to the warranties in s 362I(1)(a)(i) and subs (d)(i)–(ii) of the Building Act, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir would be entitled to remedies under the Building Act.

[98] The statutory remedies for breach of the warranties in s 362I are provided in ss 362M to 362P of the Building Act.21

[99] Section 362N provides a right of cancellation and damages in the case of substantial breach, which provides relevantly:22

362NRemedies if breach of warranty cannot be remedied or breach is substantial

(1)This section applies in any case where the breach of warranty cannot be remedied or the breach is substantial.

(2)If this section applies, the client may—

(a)obtain from the building contractor damages in compensation for any reduction in value of the product of the building work below the price paid or payable by the client for that work; or

(b)cancel the contract in accordance with section 362P.

(3)In addition to the remedy in subsection (2), the client may obtain from the building contractor damages for any loss or damage to the client resulting from the breach (other than loss or damage through reduction in the value of the product of the building work) that was reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the breach.

21 Building Act 2004, s 362L.

22 Building Act 2004, s 362O.

362O   Meaning of substantial breach

For the purposes of section 362N, a breach of warranty is substantial if—

(a)a reasonable client fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the breach would not have entered into the residential building contract; or

…

[100]           Cancellation is provided for under s 362P, which requires communication of the cancellation if practical, and is subject to any particular requirements in the contract. Sections 42 to 48 of the CCLA apply to the cancellation with any necessary modifications.

[101] Mr Freeman submits that the definition of substantial breach in s 362O is framed more broadly than the “benefit/burden test” in s 37 of the CCLA. Further, he says it is potentially easier to meet in a building context, particularly here where Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir say that they would never have entered the Contract at all if they had known the issues that would arise due to NVP’s breach of the warranties. Mr Freeman submits that NVP breaching the warranties are substantial breaches under s 362N of the Building Act.

[102] I am satisfied that there has been a substantial breach of NVP’s warranties under s 362I(1)(a)(i) and subs (d)(i)–(ii) of the Building Act.

[103] Mr Freeman submits that that given NVP’s substantial breach of warranty under s 362N, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir are entitled to cancel the Contract.

[104]           Given the substantial breach of NVP’s warranties under s 326N, I am satisfied that Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir are entitled under s 362P to cancel the Contract. I am also satisfied they have suffered the damages identified in relation to the first cause of action, as a result of NVP’s breach of warranties.

[105]The second cause of action therefore also succeeds.

Deposit

[106]           Finally, Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir seek the return of their deposit which is being held by ARL. The deposit is separate from the Contract Price.

[107]           The Contract does not expressly  provide  for  the  return  of  the  deposit.  The Contract only provides for the forfeiture of the deposit if the builder (being NVP) chooses to cancel the Contract under cl 21.4.

[108]           However, Mr Freeman submits the Court has the power to return the deposit to Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir under s 43 of the CCLA and that is the logical contractual response to NVP’s repudiation and breach of the Contract.

[109]           I am satisfied that Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir should be granted relief under s 43 of the CCLA for the return of the deposit they paid to ARL.

[110]           The power to direct a payment to be made under s 43(3)(a) relates only to a party so is not available in relation to ARL. While a direction could be made to NVP that the deposit be transferred to Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir under s 43(3)(d), I consider that in the circumstances, the most appropriate order is  one vesting the deposit in   Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir under s 43(3)(c).

Interest and costs

[111]           Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir also claim interest on the Judgment Sum from the date of the judgment to the date of payment under ss 10–12 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016. I am satisfied that such interest is properly payable.

[112]           Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir also claim costs and disbursements on the basis of a schedule attached to Mr Freeman’s submissions. The costs are sought on 2B basis. I approve the costs and disbursements claimed in the schedule, being $18,238.50 in costs and $4,021.30 in disbursements.

Orders

[113]I make the following orders.

[114]           New Vision Properties Ltd is to pay to Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir the Judgment Sum being $1,650,333.26, comprising:

(a)$1,420,874.96 for the additional cost to complete the Contract;

(b)$145,408.30  for  the  cost  of  the  remedial  work  undertaken  by  NH Construction Ltd; and

(c)$84,050 for the wasted expenditure.

[115]           ARL Lawyers is to vest the deposit of $82,965.70, held by it under the Contract, in Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir.

[116]           Interest on the Judgment Sum is payable from the date of the judgment to the date of payment under ss 10–12 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.

[117]New Vision Properties Ltd is to pay costs of $18,238.50 and disbursements of

$4,021.30 to Dr Gerrie and Dr Weir.

McQueen J

Solicitors:

Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, Lower Hutt for Plaintiffs