Key Takeaways:
- A New Zealand couple, Anne and Rodney Jess, have been embroiled in a six-year legal battle with their builder, Mark Van Den Anker, over a renovation project that was supposed to cost $300,000 but has now exceeded $900,000.
- The couple was ordered to pay the builder $136,500 after they refused to pay outstanding invoices, despite the builder being found liable for repair costs for a substandard roof.
- The couple has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on expert witnesses and legal fees, and has written to the Justice Minister asking for the court judgment against them to be quashed and compensation awarded for their ordeal.
- The builder has defended his work and blamed the couple for the costly legal battle, saying that they could have avoided the whole exercise by paying their bills on time.
Introduction to the Case
The case of Anne and Rodney Jess, a retired couple from Remuera, New Zealand, is a prime example of how a simple renovation project can turn into a nightmare. The couple had commissioned a builder, Mark Van Den Anker, to convert the garage at their five-bedroom, three-bathroom home into a one-bedroom loft. The project was supposed to cost $287,000, but things took a turn for the worse when the workmanship was found to be defective, and the addition had to be partly demolished after $100,000 had already been spent.
The Legal Battle
The couple then commissioned Van Den Anker Construction (VDA) to complete the renovation, but the project was plagued by issues, including a substandard roof. The couple refused to pay three invoices, claiming that there had been an "ancillary agreement" that no work would occur while they were abroad, a claim disputed by VDA. The builder cancelled the contract and commenced proceedings in the District Court, seeking payment of nearly $50,000 in progress fees. The couple filed a counterclaim for alleged defective building work and alleged over-charging, and the case went to trial in February 2022.
The Court Rulings
The court rulings in the case have been complex and contradictory. Judge Mary Beth Sharp initially dismissed the couple’s counterclaim and ruled in favor of VDA, awarding the company $220,000 in damages, interest, and costs. However, the couple appealed the decision to the High Court, which found that the loft roof was defective and VDA was contractually liable for repair costs, awarding the couple nearly $30,000. The High Court also dismissed the couple’s other claims relating to defective carpentry and over-charging.
The Settlement
After the High Court ruling, the parties’ lawyers negotiated a final settlement package, which was initially agreed to be $120,000. However, VDA’s lawyers claimed that the settlement had been "repudiated" after Anne sent two letters accusing Van Den Anker of misleading statements, and the amount sought jumped to $145,000 before the parties agreed to $136,500 in May. The couple has claimed that the two letters, sent in a fit of frustration, effectively cost them an extra $16,500.
The Aftermath
The case has had a significant impact on the couple, who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on expert witnesses and legal fees. They have written to the Justice Minister asking for the court judgment against them to be quashed and compensation awarded for their ordeal. The builder, Mark Van Den Anker, has defended his work and blamed the couple for the costly legal battle, saying that they could have avoided the whole exercise by paying their bills on time. The case has also highlighted the importance of paying bills on time and the consequences of not doing so, as well as the need for clear communication and agreement between clients and builders.
Conclusion
The case of Anne and Rodney Jess is a cautionary tale about the importance of clear communication, agreement, and payment in construction projects. The couple’s experience has been a nightmare, and the financial and emotional costs have been significant. The case has also highlighted the need for builders and clients to work together to avoid costly legal battles and to ensure that projects are completed to a high standard. As the couple’s lawyer said, "We just want our life back," and it is hoped that this case will serve as a lesson to others to avoid similar disputes in the future.