Hu v Mender Construction Limited

[2025] NZHC 1607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-1731

[2025] NZHC 1607

IN THE MATTER OF

a breach of contract

BETWEEN

DEAN HU

Plaintiff/First Counterclaim Defendant

AND

MENDER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

First Defendant

TAO MA
Second Defendant

SEVENTEETH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD

Third Defendant

WEIDA LIN

Fourth Defendant

Hearing:

4 April 2025

Appearances:

S Jeffs for the Plaintiff

S O McAnally for the First and Second Defendants Y Chen for the Third and Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

17 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF GARDINER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 June 2025 at 12.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Psalms Law Office, Auckland Bankside Chambers, Auckland Croftfield Law, Auckland

Righteous Law Ltd, Auckland

HU v MENDER CONSTRUCTION LTD [2025] NZHC 1607 [17 June 2025]

Introduction

[1]    Dean Hu and his wife acquired a bare site in Dairy Flat, Auckland. They intended to construct a principal house and a minor unit. They obtained a resource consent and a building consent for the building work. The site was steeply sloped in areas and therefore challenging to build upon.

[2]    Mr Hu, who is a baker by trade, did not engage a head contractor or project manager. He contracted directly with multiple contractors to complete discrete areas of building work.

[3]    Mr Hu engaged Seventeenth Construction Company Ltd (Seventeenth) to undertake building work on the site, including completing a retaining wall between the principal house and a minor unit. Mr Lin is the sole director of Seventeenth.

[4]    Mr Hu engaged Mender Construction Ltd (Mender) to undertake earthworks on the site, including backfilling the retaining wall. At the time, Mr Ma was the sole director of Mender.

[5]    The project did not go smoothly. The retaining wall failed. Additionally, Auckland Council prosecuted Mr Hu, Mender and Mr Ma for carrying out unconsented earthworks on the southern slope of the property. The Council prosecuted Mr Hu for ignoring abatement notices to stop the work.

[6]    Mr Hu now seeks to recover from the defendants the cost to replace the retaining wall and wasted material costs of $176,746.66.

[7]    Mr Hu also seeks to recover from Mr Ma and Mender the fines and legal costs he incurred in relation to the prosecution, and the cost of regularising the unauthorised earthworks. These costs amount to $364,891.80.

[8]    Separately, Mr Hu claims that Mr Lin, who purchased the neighbouring site from him, damaged Mr Hu’s fence when he dumped earth on the boundary. Mr Hu claims the cost to repair the fence, of $48,357.50, from Mr Lin.

[9]Mr Hu also seeks repayment of a $30,000 loan he says he made to Mr Lin.

[10]The statement of claim pleaded losses of a much greater magnitude: of

$1,658,000 against Mr Ma and/or Mender and $1,321,500 against Mr Lin and/or Seventeenth. On closing, Mr Hu reduced his claim to the amounts described in view of the evidence adduced at trial.

[11]   Mr Lin…