Sloppy workmanship led to water ingress and moisture damage for homes clad with manufacturer James Hardie’s product Harditex, the Court of Appeal confirmed. No fault lay with the manufacturer. This ended a marathon class action with James Hardie facing potential re-cladding costs for some 117,000 houses built prior to Harditex’ withdrawal from the market nearly twenty years ago.
Harditex was sold as external cladding. Installation consisted of fibre cement sheets nailed directly to timber framing with only building wrap as a barrier between the two.
The court was told of invasive testing carried out on eight Harditex-clad properties to determine the extent and causes of moisture damage. These test properties were owned by class-action litigants suing James Hardie.
None of the eight test properties had cladding installed in full compliance with manufacturer’s instructions. None had cladding properly jointed. Window installations did not comply. Many did not have an approved coating system applied. Those that did, were left with the coating not properly or incompletely applied.
Home-owners’ complaints that Harditex was inherently defective and not suitable for exterior cladding were dismissed. James Hardie was not negligent and was not in breach of the Fair Trading Act the court ruled.
The fault lay with contractors affixing the product.
lnstallation instructions were adequate.
James Hardie is not a guarantor of building standards, the court said. It could not be held responsible for poor on-the-job workmanship.
Cridge v. Studorp Ltd – Court of Appeal (26.09.24)
24.231