03/08/2021
The news came out yesterday that the James Hardy Class Action Court Case is over. The plaintiffs have pulled out and their litigation funder has agreed to pay James Hardie $1.25 million.
So what does this mean?
Does it mean that James Hardie was correct? That their flagship monolithic cladding was fit for purpose and any leaks in Harditex houses were the result of bad workmanship?
No. It just means that Habour Litigation got cold feet, lost confidence in the legal team and the process, so decided to pull the pin rather than risk more money.
Who wins out of this outcome?
No.1 is the lawyers on both sides - they always win, financially at least. Although Adina Thorn's reputation has surely suffered a major hit. Did she and her team run a competent case? Did they use all of the resources available to them and did they present the best evidence available? Should they have joined the BIA, BRANZ, NZ Standards and the other parties who contributed to the problem into the action rather than focussing just on James Hardie?
It seemed from the outside that James Hardie was clearly at fault. Their system clearly failed and caused loss. Their installation instructions (not using a cavity or well treated timber) contravened the NZ Standards in force at the time. Their system did not allow for the inevitable water intrusion that was always going to happen - and there were legal precedents showing that cladding manufacturers were at fault for this They knew there were problems for many years but didn't withdraw the product, warn the public or make substantive changes to the product or the installation instructions. But somehow, Adina's side managed failed to make a compelling enough case.
James Hardie has certainly won and even get back a small portion of their legal costs. They have had to settle other cases against them (Department of Education), but squeaked out of this one somehow. James Hardie will be saying that this vindicates them, but it doesn't. No one has said that the case lacked merit, it just appears that Habour Litigation bailed out leaving the homeowners high and dry. Visit www.leakyhomesexposed.co.nz for some more insights into why James Hardie (and others) were to blame for the leaky homes scandal.
Who has really lost?
The real losers are obviously the Harditex homeowners who were hoping for some money to compensate for their leaky, rotting homes. Now, they are truly on their own, and now, due to the time this case has taken, their houses are likely more damaged.
What can these homeowners do?
Now that the legal doors for claims against James Hardie, builders, councils etc are slammed shut, it's time for some decisions. They are going to feel deeply hurt, angry, disappointed, despondent, and probably helpless. It will doubtless take some time before they can think logically about their future.
Then, they can do what everyone with a leaky house has to do. Start making decisions.
Decide to just do nothing, sell and take the loss, repair, re-clad, or re-build. All are major decisions and all with their own set of costs and ramifications.
Everyone who owns a house with monolithic cladding, whether it appears to be leaking or not, has to make these same decisions.
No major decision should ever be made without gathering the best information first. Only when you know how your house is actually performing and the options available to you, can you make decisions on its future.
Visual only inspections, thermal imaging, and surface moisture scanning are simply not accurate and must not be relied upon. They miss many defects, report other defects that aren't actually there, and tell you nothing about the condition of your timber.
Invasive cutouts are very destructive, expensive and limited in what they can tell you about your overall house condition. Once you start cutting out your cladding, you almost guarantee that you then need a re-clad because these can't be repaired invisibly.
The only way to gather the accurate evidence that you need before making a major decision is by using Mdu moisture probes. These are cheap, non-destructive, giving actual moisture readings and the timber condition at dozens of locations.
In many cases, targeted repairs, local timber retreatment and on-going moisture probe monitoring are all that is required to maintain a plaster clad house.
https://www.leakyhomesexposed.co.nz/
Call us for more information on 09 271 0522 or visit us at www.moisturedetection.co.nz.
Learn who's to blame for the disturbing and scarcely believable negligence and coverups that led to the Leaky Homes Scandal.