district court logo

Perry v Far North Holdings Ltd [2020] NZDC 24049

Published 21 April 2021

Application for damages — breach of contract — anti-fouling — paint removal — garnet grit — wet glass blasting — general warranty — Evidence Act 2006, s 17 — Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son [1993] AC 470 — Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] AC 331. The applicant sought damages against the defendant for breach of contract in the alternative: either for diminution in value of the applicant's yacht as a result of repair work required, or the cost of undertaking the work. The applicant had contracted with the defendant to remove paint from his yacht and reapply an anti-fouling agent. The contract specified wet glass blasting down to the gelcoat and applying an anti-fouling agent. Instead, the defendant used garnet grit which removed a significant amount of the gelcoat too and failed to apply the anti-fouling coat. As a result, the yacht's hull sustained significant bubbling and required extensive repair work. The defendant admitted to breaching the contract but submitted that the vessel had been prone to osmosis prior to the work being undertaken. The Judge considered evidence from various expert witnesses, and favoured that of a marine surveyor who was of the opinion that the blistering in the hull was the result of improper preparation during the course of the defendant's work. Having found in favour of the applicant, the Judge granted leave to supply an updated estimate of the cost of repairs. Formal entry of judgment was deferred until the estimated cost of repairs was established. Judgment Date: 23 November 2020.

Tags