Mehta v Chandra

[2025] NZHC 578

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-1120

[2025] NZHC 578

BETWEEN

DHARMENDRA MEHTA

Appellant/Cross Respondent

AND

EMENUWAL CHANDRA

Respondent/Cross Appellant

Hearing:

26 November 2024

Appearances:

S Carey for Appellant

M Taylor for Respondent

Judgment:

19 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19/03/2025 at 3 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: S Carey, Auckland M Taylor, Auckland

MEHTA v CHANDRA [2025] NZHC 578 [19 March 2025]

Introduction  [1]

Background[8]

The District Court decision  [26]

The costs decision[69]

The grounds of appeal[79]

Mr Mehta’s substantive appeal[79]

Mr Mehta’s appeal in relation to costs[97]

Relief sought[107]

Mr Chandra’s position  [108]

Mr Chandra’s position on the substantive matters[108]

Mr Chandra’s position in relation to costs[128]

Relief sought[137]

Approach on appeal[138]

Issues[140]

Discussion[141]

Construction defects[141]

The off-centre pillar[158]

Should the Judge have relied on the Kaizon report in relation to delay?[160]

Should damages for delay have been awarded other than as a consequence of a breach of contract given the liquidated damages clause of the

Project Management Contract, and given that Mr Chandra was not a party to that contract?[163]

Should responsibility for delay have been apportioned; and if so, was the

apportionment correct?[164]

Mr Chandra’s liability[167]

Was the award of general damages correct?[175]

Should the cost of the Kaizon report have been apportioned?[180]

Was the Judge correct to award costs on a 2B basis, and only for steps taken after June 2019?[183]

Should interest be payable on the judgment sum from October 2010?[189]

Orders[196]

Introduction

[1]    On 16 April 2024, Judge K Davenport KC issued a decision on a claim for damages against Mr Emenuwal Chandra in respect of building and project management    work    which    Mr Chandra/his     company     carried     out     at   Mr Dharmendra Mehta’s Mount Roskill home in 2010.1

[2]    Mr Chandra was the owner and sole director of Habitat Builders Ltd (Habitat), a company now removed from  the  New  Zealand  Companies  Register  (Companies Register), which was engaged on a labour-only basis to do carpentry work on Mr Mehta’s house, and to project manage the build.

[3]    Mr Mehta claimed that Habitat and Mr Chandra failed to carry out the building and project management work properly and in a timely manner.

[4]     Mr Mehta was partially successful in his claim but appeals the aspects of the judgment in which he was unsuccessful. Mr Mehta also appeals a subsequent costs decision dated 15 July 2024.2

[5]    Mr Chandra opposes Mr Mehta’s appeal and cross-appeals the District Court Judge’s decision in relation to:

(a)the award of damages for delays in the building works;

(b)the finding of liability made against Mr Chandra personally; and

(c)the award of $10,000 in general damages to Mr Mehta.

[6]    Mr Chandra also appeals the costs decision and submits that costs should lie where they fall.

[7]Mr Mehta resists the cross-appeal.

1      Mehta v Habitat Builders Ltd [2024] NZDC 4779.

2      Mehta v Habitat Builders…