Small battle won in leaky home legal claim against James Hardie

Thursday, 13 December 2018

Lawyer Adina Thorn represents around 1000 leaky home owners.

Building supplies giant James Hardie has lost a bid to have its Ireland-based parent company removed from a $250 million leaky building claim against its New Zealand subsidiary.

Lawyer Adina Thorn has launched a class action lawsuit on behalf of around 1000 leaky building owners claiming James Hardie's Harditex, Monotek and Titan products, which were widely used to clad new homes, were faulty products.

Thorn welcomed the Court of Appeal decision, which allowed the owners she acts for to continue claiming against the Ireland-registered parent company of the James Hardie Group,

James Hardie Industries PLC had sought to be removed from the claim, and appealed the High Court's decision that they should remain in, Thorn said.

* $200 million 'leaky building' NZ class action filed against James Hardie**

The claim against James Hardie centres on properties constructed or re-clad with James Hardie products between 1983 and 2011.

They were clad in fibre cement sheets with one or other of the brand names Harditex, Monotek or Titan (sometimes also known as Titan Board) manufactured by either Studorp (prior to 1998) or James Hardie New Zealand.

Annamarie Rangikotua in front of her Belmont home which she has signed up to the James Hardie leaky building lawsuit.

The homeowners claim James Hardie companies, including the Irish parent, had a duty to warn, if it knew its products were faulty, which Thorn is seeking to prove.

James Hardie had argued that courts around the world had consistently held that the use of a group management structure did not make the 'parent liable for the acts of a subsidiary'.

'We see today's decision as a significant step forward in bringing James Hardie to justice. The owners believe the parent company of the group should be called to account,' Thorn said.

'The owners say that James Hardie negligently manufactured and supplied Harditex, Monotek and Titan products. We believe the parent company has a key part to play in this. The owners also say James Hardie had a duty to warn consumers of alleged problems with the products,' she said.

'There was a risk due to the massively complicated company structure that PLC would be able to escape this claim. James Hardie has been no stranger to litigation in NZ and in Australia for asbestos claims. We believe it should be called to account for its conduct'.

'The decision means we are entitled to know about the role of management of PLC in this and what steps it took and what knowledge it had of the real problems in New Zealand'.

'We want to know what happened here. No company in a corporate group really operates in a silo. We need to know what PLC knew and did'.

Thorn said the owners of leaky homes have suffered more than just damage to their homes. They have also suffered from stress, depression, and health conditions due to mould.

'Finding justice for these James Hardie victims is what this is about. We have funding and are able to pursue this claim. Acting for the victims is our top priority,' Thorn said.