Remuera, Auckland
Cao and Tao is a recent decision where I acted for a labour-only builder engaged by a developer to undertake specific construction work.
The claim involved a residential property in Remuera, Auckland.
It required full re-cladding.
The owners initially proceeded against seven respondents.
The decision is also notable for containing a detailed discussion of the measure of damages for claimants who own leaky homes. The main issue was whether the appropriate measure was remedial costs or diminution in value, in circumstances where the former significantly exceeded the latter (by an estimated 25%). Although the claimants wanted to remain living in the property and were concerned that they may not be able to buy a replacement property, the WHT found that the decision to repair was taken when remedial costs were significantly lower than the amount claimed.
As a result, the WHT concluded there was a “genuine question” as to whether it remained economic to repair, and awarded the loss of value ($452,000). General damages of $25,000 were also awarded.
The contributions determined between the respondents were: 60% developer, 20% council and 20% labour-only builder.
The claimants have just appealed to the High Court.
09 304 0666
Cao & Tao
Remuera, Auckland
Cao and Tao is a recent decision where I acted for a labour-only builder engaged by a developer to undertake specific construction work.
The claim involved a residential property in Remuera, Auckland.
It required full re-cladding.
The owners initially proceeded against seven respondents.
The decision is also notable for containing a detailed discussion of the measure of damages for claimants who own leaky homes. The main issue was whether the appropriate measure was remedial costs or diminution in value, in circumstances where the former significantly exceeded the latter (by an estimated 25%). Although the claimants wanted to remain living in the property and were concerned that they may not be able to buy a replacement property, the WHT found that the decision to repair was taken when remedial costs were significantly lower than the amount claimed.
As a result, the WHT concluded there was a “genuine question” as to whether it remained economic to repair, and awarded the loss of value ($452,000). General damages of $25,000 were also awarded.
The contributions determined between the respondents were: 60% developer, 20% council and 20% labour-only builder.
The claimants have just appealed to the High Court.