References

I was engaged by Argon Construction Ltd, First Defendant, in proceedings claiming defects to an apartment building. The matter proceeded to completion of the trial.

I was referenced 75 times in the judgement and the Judge accepted all of my findings that contrasted sharply with the evidence for the Plaintiff, as quoted below.

[64] Mr Alexander, Argon’s expert building surveyor, was a model witness. His evidence was substantially helpful, presented in a coherent and well-structured manner, and his criticisms of the plaintiffs’ experts was restrained and measured. I agree with his criticism. I accept Mr McCartney’s submission that Mr Alexander’s evidence was unassailable. I acknowledge the significant constraints that the plaintiffs’ expert building surveyors were operating under, but by comparison their evidence falls short of the quality and standard adopted by Mr Alexander. I agree with and accept the problems he identifies, and his analysis of them, as well as his remedial scope.

[65] The plaintiffs’ criticisms of Mr Alexander are misplaced. Mr Alexander is well qualified to speak about concrete balconies over non-habitable spaces and to place some emphasis on that fact in diagnosing the problems and proposing a solution. He has substantial and relevant experience in the New Zealand building industry. His company, Alexander & Co Ltd, has been investigating building failure and assisting with dispute resolutions since the beginning of 2000.

[66] I agree and accept Mr Alexander’s analysis that there were two problems that arose with the balconies:

[67] The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses focus on the failure of the membrane as the main mechanism of failure. However, I agree with Mr Alexander that that is not entirely correct.

[69] Mr Alexander’s evidence, which I accept and adopt, does however provide substantial support for the plaintiffs’ contention that the matters pleaded are actionable defects and sufficiently widespread to be described as systemic.

[85] ……. On that critical issue I agree with and adopt the findings reached by Mr Alexander, namely that water penetration “into and through the façade wall assembly” has been limited.

[90] I accept and adopt the following findings made by Mr Alexander:

[96] For the reasons given above, I prefer and accept the evidence of Mr Alexander on these issues.

[98] I note also that Mr Alexander was the only witness who established that the largest cause of leaking into the carpark was via the services duct.

[100] I agree with Mr Alexander that it is also important to place the defects in context.

[218] Mr Hakin is on sound ground when he contends that Bianco Off Queen is a high-maintenance building. I note that Mr Alexander shares that view.

[240] I find that Mr Alexander’s scope of repairs is the appropriate, reasonable scope of repairs to address the proven defects in this case.

[246]. ……. Ironically, if I were to accept the plaintiffs’ criticisms of Mr Alexander and reject his evidence, then there would be no scope before the Court that could be accepted. Ultimately, it is for the plaintiffs to prove their case, including a reasonable scope of repairs for which the defendants might properly be responsible.

[247] Mr Alexander responsibly acknowledged that aspects of the plaintiffs’ remedial scope were commonplace.

[267] My rejection of the plaintiffs’ proposed scope of remedial works and acceptance and adoption of Mr Alexander’s scope presents challenges and difficulties for the plaintiffs’ case and my calculation of quantum.

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J 
BODY CORPORATE 406198 v ARGON CONSTRUCTION LTD & OR [2023] NZHC 3034 [30 October 2023]

In Bates v ACC, September 2021, I was engaged as a witness of fact as opposed to the usual engagement as an expert.  Alexander and Co Ltd or Mr Alexander were referenced 86 times in the judgement. 

[157] Mr Alexander impressed me as a careful, detached and objective witness, notwithstanding his earlier involvement in the project. I accept his evidence on the omission of the proposed ventilation holes.  

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J 
BATES v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 2558 [29 September 2021] 

In 2017 I had completed two expert determinations for GPW Investments Ltd. regarding a town house development in Glen Innes.

A subsequent High Court matter was about an application by GPW to set aside a statutory demand. Associate Justice Sargisson quoted my determinations and relied upon the findings. The judgement found the determinations were binding but not final and that the appropriate course was for Dreamhome to challenge the Expert Determinations rather than apply for a statutory demand to get around disputed findings.

Further, GPW was correct when not providing a payment schedule in reliance on the first determination and the Court found that the “sudden death” payment scheme of the CCA had not been engaged because the determination had found the claim to be invalid.

[34] But with respect to both aspects of the Payment Claim, Dreamhome essentially repeats a claim already dismissed by Mr Alexander. I do not consider the Act intended to allow a payee to trip up a payer by issuing a Payment Claim in those circumstances.10 I consider the Payment Claim was served prematurely and in conflict with s 20(1)(a) of the Act, and was an abuse of process for that reason.

GPW INVESTMENTS LTD v DREAMHOME CONSTRUCTION GROUP LTD [2017] NZHC 2057 [28 August 2017]

Associate Justice Sargisson’s decision was affirmed in the appeal of South Pacific Industrial Ltd v Demasol Ltd. and also cited in Nicholls Group Projects Ltd v Plan Design Build Homes Ltd [2022] NZHC 56

[86] …Where those experts take differing views on particular issues I generally prefer the evidence of Mr Alexander.  Having had the opportunity to consider their evidence and the answers to cross-examination, I consider Mr Alexander’s evidence was more realistic and balanced than the evidence of Mr ■■■■■■■■.  Mr Alexander was prepared to make concessions where appropriate in evidence-in-chief. On the other hand in my view on a number of occasions Mr ■■■■■■■■ overstated the significance of a particular issue until he was driven to concede its actual importance. 

[118] I prefer Mr Alexander’s evidence on this point. He concluded Mr ■■■■■■■■ made far too much out of the corrosion issue. 

[138] Mr Alexander accepted the failure to install an adequate ridge beam would be a code issue and would have been visible on final inspection. The Council was in breach on this item.    

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J 
THREE MEADE STREET LIMITED And Anor V ROTORUA DISTRICT COUNCIL And Ors HC AK M37/02 [11 June 2004]

[44] … Mr Alexander's credentials and experience which he outlined in his brief of evidence speak for themselves. Mr ■■■■■■■■ who gave expert evidence for the plaintiffs and who reached conclusions different from Mr Alexander, readily acknowledged Mr Alexander's professionalism, expertise and established reputation in the building industry, particularly in relation to buildings with defects and water-proofing and water resistance problems. 

[64] Mr Alexander was a credible witness. I accept his evidence on this. 

JUDGMENT OF POTTER J
R.M. LERNER and J.K. RADLEY v SCHIEHALLION NOMINEES LIMITED CP 167 /SD02