Hsu v Mahoney

[2021] NZHC 1611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2017-409-000100

[2021] NZHC 1611

BETWEEN

PI-HUI BEATRICE TSAI HSU

First Plaintiff

AND

KENNETH TSAI

Second Plaintiff

AND

MARGARET ANN MAHONEY and GRAHAM PAUL MCQUEEN

First Defendants (Discontinued)

AND

BUSHNELL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

(formerly named BUSHNELL BUILDERS LIMITED)
Second Defendant

AND

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

Third Defendant (Discontinued)

AND

LANCE PHILIP AUSTIN

Fourth Defendant

AND

BUSHNELL BUILDERS LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

Hearing:

15 – 18 March 2021

Appearances:

R G Smedley and T D Grimwood for Plaintiffs

S P Rennie and A Whalan for Second, Fourth and Fifth Defendants

Judgment:

1 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE DOOGUE

(Liability)

HSU v MAHONEY [2021] NZHC 1611

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 July 2021 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Contents

Introduction........................................................................................................... [1]

The Facts............................................................................................................... [8]
Initial engagement between the parties  [8]

Unexpected ground conditions  [16]

The retaining wall  [20]
First reports of water ingress - 2009  [26]

Earliest attempts at remediation of the retaining wall - 2009 to 2010             [32] February 2010 to December 2010  [38]

Complaints to the Master Builders Association - 2011  [46]
Further remediation – the curtain injection method  [59]
Further work by BIL  [65]

Water testing  [70]

Canterbury earthquake sequence  [77]
The proceedings to date...................................................................................... [82]
The parties’ respective cases................................................................................ [94]
The credibility of the parties................................................................................ [99]
The experts and their qualifications................................................................... [107]
What constitutes a properly constructed tanking system?  [115]
What went wrong in this case?.......................................................................... [117]

Remediation attempts........................................................................................ [125]

Curtain injection method  [125]

Appropriateness of the curtain injection method in this case         [129] Location of the water ingress................................................................................................................ [139]

The water ingress at the entrance to the house  [139] Are there other points of entry for water ingress as a failure to construct the tanking system successfully?  [151]

Causes of Action................................................................................................ [162]

First cause of action against BIL - breach of contract  [162]

Second cause of action against BIL - negligence  [166] Third cause of action against BIL – breach of RW Agreement and CRMBA agreement [172]

Counterclaim by BIL  [175]
Cause of action against Mr Austin – negligence  [180]

The law  [182]

Did Mr Austin exert a sufficient degree of control over the relevant acts or omissions? [219]

Did Mr Austin breach that duty of care through negligent acts and omissions?

[220]

What loss have the Tsais suffered as a result of Mr Austin’s negligence? [225] Cause of action against BBL2 – negligence  [228] Conclusions on liability  [239]

How should the retaining wall be remediated?................................................. [245]

Quantum............................................................................................................ [249]

Remediation  [249]
Have the Tsais already been compensated for their loss?  [259]

General damages  [270]

Result................................................................................................................. [276]

Introduction

[1]                 The plaintiffs, Ms Hsu and Mr Tsai (the Tsais) are the co-owners of a property (the property) situated at 2 Clearview Lane, Mt Pleasant, Christchurch.

[2]                 The first defendants, Margaret Mahoney and Graham Paul McQueen, are the executors of the Maurice Mahoney Estate (the executors). Mr Mahoney was a founding member of the…