The hut that was built to leak

Tuesday, 3 July 2018

A small building, called a test hut, has been built specifically by the Ministry of Education to see whether it would leak in a bid to gather evidence for its leaky schools claim against Carter Holt Harvey.

In a paddock at a North Island secret location stands the only building erected in New Zealand which the owner actually hoped would leak.

All around the country buildings went up through the late 1990s and early 2000s that leaked, but none of the people who built them had their fingers crossed hoping water would seep in.

But the paddock 'test hut' was built by the Ministry of Education in a bid prove Carter Holt Harvey's Shadowclad panels were doomed to fail, even if they were 'perfectly' installed as per the building material company's construction manuals.

The ministry is suing Carters for damages relating to 833 leaky school buildings.

* Leaky building class action against James Hardie gets go ahead

* NZ homeowners prepare Shadowclad lawsuit

* Widow settles 'washerwoman' asbestos claim with James Hardie**

The case is one of two massive leaky building claims grinding their way at glacial pace through the courts system

Both cases revolve around claims that panels to clad exterior walls manufactured by Carters, and its rival building materials giant James Hardie, were defective products, doomed to leak in New Zealand conditions regardless of how well they were installed.

Carters and James Hardie are defending the claims against them.

Details of the test hut were 'legally privileged', said the ministry, but Stuff publishing a photograph of the hut did not breach that privilege.

Patch repairs on a home clad with Carter Holt Harvey's Shadowclad panels.

'The ministry can confirm that a small building, called a test hut, has been built specifically for this litigation and is perfectly constructed in compliance with the Shadowclad specifications,' Rob Giller, acting head of education infrastructure services at the ministry.

'That building uses a combination of new Shadowclad sheets, Shadowclad sheets obtained from schools and different finishes - painted, unpainted, stain, dark and light colours.

Lawyer, Adina Thorn is fighting for leaky home owner clients against James Hardie.

'Monitoring and other equipment has been installed in the test hut to understand how the product performs in wet and windy conditions,' he said.

James Hardie was the supplier of some forms of cladding that are common on leaky buildings.

The key to the project is to establish whether or not Carter's Shadowclad panels could stand up to New Zealand's wet climate.

'Monitoring of the test hut allows the ministry to assess the performance of the Shadowclad over time by tracking moisture moving through the building. Because the test hut does not have any design or construction defects other than those inherent in the Shadowclad system, the results will demonstrate how the Shadowclad system performs in real world conditions.'

James Hardie settled with the ministry in 2013 over leaky school buildings built using its panelling, paying it an undisclosed sum, but the building materials giant has since been rejoined as a defendant to the case.

On Monday, the test hut was cited in the Auckland High Court in the second of the giant leaky building cases.

It's being taken by Auckland lawyer Adina Thorn against James Hardie, in a claim for around $250m centring on 365 leaky buildings, including some multi-unit developments, owned by over 1000 individual owners.

Thorn's claim is that there was a 'fatal flaw' with James Hardie's panel products Titanboard and Harditex, and, her case alleges, once James Hardie knew there was a problem with its panels, it had a duty to warn the market, and homeowners.

James Hardie's lawyer John Hodder said his client would run an 'affirmative' defence, arguing that it was poor workmanship that caused the leaks.

The hearing on Monday was for Thorn and James Hardie to present arguments on whether a split trial should be held.

This is a new approach in New Zealand, aimed at speeding up the trial process.

Thorn was seeking a ruling on whether the James Hardie products were defective. Stage two would then involve working out who should pay damages, if any are owed to the building owners.

The court heard that split trials had been used overseas, where they were seen as more efficient than trying to hear all claims in a single hearing lasting many months.

Judge Christian Whata granted Thorn's application for a split trial, though the full details of how it will happen have yet to be finalised.

A split trial will happen in another much smaller legal case in which James Hardie is being sued by leaky building owners Tracey Cridge, Mark Unwin, Katrina McKellar, Scott Woodhead, and a body corporate.