Powered by LawFuel – James Hardie’s release to the Australian Stock Exchange yesterday – that it ultimately intends to “cease all manufacturing of products in New Zealand”, at the cost of some 120 Kiwi jobs – is unlikely to stall the class action brought by over 1,000 leaky home owners.
[adrotate banner=”92″]
Adina Thorn, the lawyer leading the action, says the announcement is “concerning” but “not overly surprising” given the history of James Hardie with asbestos in Australia, extensive litigation in that country, and a history of major corporate restructuring.
“We have seen this kind of behaviour before. Now we are seeing a massive downsize of the New Zealand business in the face of significant litigation. Fortunately, our claim is against four other James Hardie companies – three in Australia and the parent company in Ireland. The plaintiffs allege they are each liable.
“If you ask any of the owners – they do not care “which” James Hardie company is legally liable. They just want James Hardie to take responsibility for what they say is designing, manufacturing and selling defective cladding systems and products. They also say that they knew of problems with the products and never said anything, and had a duty to warn”.
“This kind of news gives home owners more stress. Not only do they live in leaky homes in need of recladding and many have mould, they also have health problems, and now have the added worry of “what’s next” with James Hardie. This is when many of the home owners are suffering from significant stress, anxiety and depression”.
The plaintiffs in the class action have a trial in the High Court at Auckland commencing on 3 May 2021 and the trial is due to run for 20 weeks.
For further information please contact:
Adina Thorn Lawyers maryclaire@adinathorn.co.nz +64 9 304 0661
[adrotate banner=”91″]
More on LawFuel
- Meredith Connell Clean Up On Fees in Tauranga Landslide Legal Defence
Ratepayers across Tauranga are picking up a legal and professional advice bill exceeding $1.2 million in the aftermath of the fatal Mauao (Mount Maunganui) landslide, highlighting the mounting exposure and legal complexities facing local authorities in disaster response. Figures presented to the Tauranga City Council (TCC) reveal that responding to the tragic 22 January 2026 slip, which claimed six lives at the Mount Maunganui Beachside Holiday Park, has so far cost more than $5 million from the council’s $7 million emergency risk reserves. Of that, professional advice and legal review expenses have rapidly spiralled past $1.7 million, with external counsel and legal support alone accounting for well over $1.2 million. - Big Law Firms Have Been Keeping the AI Savings – Now Wall Street Wants Them Back
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citi are asking a rather uncomfortable question of their outside lawyers: if AI is making legal work faster, why aren’t the bills getting smaller? Power Points Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are pushing major law firms to demonstrate how AI efficiencies are being reflected in their legal bills. Citi has begun asking firms bidding for work to explain their AI-related savings, while Morgan Stanley is moving much of its outside legal work toward competitive bidding and alternative fee arrangements. The pressure goes directly to the BigLaw leverage model, where armies of associates traditionally generated large volumes of billable hours. New LexisNexis research shows 94 per cent of lawyers now use AI for legal work and 55 per cent expect AI to change law firm billing. The battle is shifting from whether lawyers should use AI to a much more interesting question: who gets the financial benefit? For the past few years BigLaw has been enthusiastically telling anyone within PowerPoint range that artificial intelligence will transform legal practice and clients have been listening. - When a Software Bug Becomes a Legal Problem: What Businesses Should Know
- Is Road Rage Actually a Crime in Florida?
- Australia Law – Holding Redlich Counsel Outlines Effect of Privacy Law Changes
- Why Courts Require Proof That a Change in Circumstances Is Both Significant and Ongoing
- Does Your Massachusetts Police Report Go to Your Insurer?
