Welcome to ITM

  • Suggested results
  • No stores found, please try again
ArticleHero

Builder judged personally liable for renovation stuff ups

By Building Business
The high court ordered a Christchurch builder and his company to pay more than $430,000 for a renovation project that went off the rails due to multiple blunders, cost overruns and a blown-out schedule for an 8-week project that went on for 16 months.

Christchurch homeowners commissioned the Christchurch LBP builder and his company to undertake renovations on their house, a 347m3 dwelling of timber-framed construction on a concrete slab, built in 1985.

The house was clad with red bricks and horizontal kahikatea weatherboards, with long-run roofing and butynol above aluminium dormer windows. The owners signed a certified builders contract with the building company to carry out work that included:
  • Replacing timber cladding
  • Replacing all exterior windows
  • Lifting roofing iron, removing roofing nails and replacing them with screws
  • Placing spray foam insulation into all exterior walls where the cladding is being replaced and around dormer windows
  • Replacing all butynol roofing
The clients agreed to a fixed price contract of $166,323.30. The work was scheduled to take approximately eight weeks.
 
 
What went wrong?
  • The 8-week project ended up taking 16 months
  • Fixed price exceeded
  • The builder installed new 200 mm horizontal weatherboard directly to existing framing without a cavity system, ignoring the manufacturer’s guidelines, voiding the manufacturer’s warranty and in breach of NZBC requirements
  • Sub-contractors were not paid on time, leading to walk-offs
  • Holes for external cladding drilled through cladding joints instead of the middle of the boards
  • Failed to install pans/trays when installing windows resulting in leaks
  • Kitchen windows were installed out of square and would not open

“a builder has a personal duty of care to a building owner to meet the standards of a reasonable builder when engaging in building work."

In initial discussions with the homeowners, the builder said that building consent was not required because it was a renovation project that did not involve major structural work. Expert witnesses disagreed, and the council confirmed a consent should have been sought before building work began.

In his summary, the judge said the builder and his company should pay $400,852.75 to the homeowners for remedial work, including removing and replacing the cladding, a further $30,000 in compensation, and legal costs.

He wrote in his judgement that “a builder has a personal duty of care to a building owner to meet the standards of a reasonable builder when engaging in building work. That is so whether they are an employee, a director of a company or are self-employed.”