Avonhead flats site subsides — damages claim

Press, 27 October 1982, Page 4

Avonhead flats site subsides — damages claim

Two blocks of 'ownership flats built bn the site of a filled shingle pit in Cutts Road, Avonhead. were breaking up as the ground beneath them subsided. Mr Justice Hardie Boys was told in the High Court yesterday. The flats were occupied almost exclusively by elderly persons who were apprehensive about the future of their dwellings and the litigation they had to face, said counsel for one couple. Damages totalling more than $95,000 are claimed by the owners of the four flats and by one previous owner against five defendants who deny liability. The five plaintiffs are Alan Menzies Reid, aged 75. and Elsie Hope Reid, aged 74. who are represented by Mr S. R. Maling: Margaret Anna Kelland. a widow, Leith Margaret Friend! Irene Anna Motron apd David James Brant, an engineer, and Glenice Diane Brant, a teacher, all of whom are represented by Messrs J. G. Fogarty and T. Weston.

Douglas Homes. Ltd. property developers and builders, are. cited as the first defendant; Douglas Richard Parker and George Ratcliffe Parker, directors of Douglas Homes, as the second and third defendants; the Waimairi County Council, as the fourth defendant; and Frederick Roland Smith, a consulting engineer, as the fifth defendant.

Messrs B. J. Gallagher, of Auckland, and W. J. Mather, appear for Douglas Homes and its two directors: Messrs H. S. Hancock and M. B. de Broekert, both of Wellington, for the Waimairi' Council; and Messrs D. H. P. Dawson and J. C. Lofts for Mr Smith. The case is set down for four days but may take longer.

The statements of claims for all plaintiffs are similar.

Opening his case Mr Maling said that all the actions were claims by owners or occupiers of ownership flats at 27 and 29 Cutts Road. Essentially they were damages claims because of building failure due to subsidance. The flats were built on the site of' a former shingle pit which was filled with saw'dust and other materials, and since the construction of the flats settlement had occurred beneath the buildings and in other areas. Some flats were affected more than others.

It was agreed that all flats were in need of substantial remedial work. The builder, Douglas! Homes, Ltd, the first defendant and its activities had been under the control of Douglas Richard Parker and George Ratcliffe Parker, director and shareholders in the company, the second and third defendants. The two flats at 27 Cutts

Road were built first in 1976 and those at 29 were constructed in 1977 after a building permit for them was issued by ’ the Waimairi County Council in April 27 of that year. The council was the fourth defendant. Frederick Roland Smith, the fifth defendant, was engaged by the developer to advise on the foundations and piling for the flats because of the problems with the filled site. Since Mr and Mrs Reid had taken possession of their flat on November 30, 1979, subsidance had taken place and continued to occur with the result that: Window frames had become distorted and were pulled from their settings.

Door frames had become warped and continued to distort.

The summerhill stone veneer of the building had separated from the building frame. Mortar work in the summerhill stone veneer was extensively cracked and continued to crack. Foundations w r ere extensively and severely cracked. Interior damage had been caused by settlement and movement of the building frame.

Other cracks had appeared and continued to appear in both the superstructure and in other improvements on the flat.

Before taking possession of their flat Mr and Mrs Reid were unaware of any defects in the land or building. It was known to Douglas Homes, its two directors and the Waimairi Council that the premises were built upon filled ground.

It was claimed that subsidance of land and buildings was due to insufficient Or inadequate foundation and piling, construction upon in-sufficiently-compacted fill and to a design which was inadequate for the circumstances.

Mr and Mrs Reid had suffered loss and would continue to do so because, the premises ' m their presentstate were unsaleable, .subsidance was still occurring and the repair of existing defects and the prevention of future damage could only be achieved by substantial and extensive repair work and repiling.

The cost of the repair work was estimated at $16,400 and even after that work was done the market value of the flat was reduced by about $15,000.

Mr and Mrs Reid claimed that Douglas Homes was negligent by failing 'to take care to ensure that the foundations and piling were sufficient to support the flat, and to ensure that the work was carried out to avoid subsidance and damage.

Some parts of the building at 29A Cuffs Road had no piles and in other areas where prestressed fence posts had been driven in to support the piles on which the foundation rested, one had not been connected with the other, so that the foundations did not rest on the piles.

In some instances the pile had not been driven into solid ground, said Mr Maling. Mr and Mrs Reid said that Douglas Homes in common law had a duty of care to the future owners and had acted in breach of that duty and damage had resulted. The claim against Douglas and George Parker was based on the fact that they had the controlling interest in Douglas Homes and had the day-to-day control over the construction of the flat and failed to discharge their duty of care, which was the same as that of the company.

It was no defence for the two Parkers to claim that their actions were those of the company. They supervised the activities on the site, obtained the building permit, arranged subcontractors and dealt with Frederick Smith, the consulting engineer and the purchasers of the flat.

Damages of $15,000 for economic loss were sought from Douglas Homes and Douglas and George Parker. Dealing with the claim against the Waimairi Council Mr Maling said that it was the local authority with the jurisdiction over the land. The council had failed to carry out its duties to determine. the suitability of the land for subdivision and residential development.

The council had not imposed the appropriate conditions on the building permit to ensure conformity with prescribed standards of construction and to supervise the construction so that it complied with the provisions of its bylaws. It had failed to ensure that the foundations were taken down to a solid bearing when it was aware that the site was a filled shingle pit. The sum of $15,000 was claimed from the council.

Mr Smith, a registered consulting civil and structural engineer, knew of- thesite problems and had not made certain that the building had piles in a solid bedding, Mr Maling said.