A former senior manager of building supplies company James Hardie says he would not have bought a house clad with the company's product over his fears it would leak.
The court case is unfolding at the High Court in Auckland. Photo: RNZ / Simon Rogers
That cladding is now at the centre of a $220 million court case alleging it did in fact leak and the James Hardie companies knew this and kept selling it.
Bradley Bridges was on James Hardie's global group management team in California in the 1990s and 2000.
He told the High Court at Auckland he thought from early on that there was a risk the Harditex cladding would leak.
"I remember thinking it would need to be tested fully and installed to exacting standards, otherwise there would be potential for water ingress and potential failure," Bridges said.
"I remember thinking that I would not buy a house built with that [cladding] system."
He said during his time on the global group management team (the GMT) they discussed reports that the cladding had weathertightness issues in New Zealand.
"I could not understand why there were not more claims against James Hardie. My thinking at the time was that James Hardie was dodging a bullet."
Bridges said James Hardie New Zealand informed the GMT that Harditex issues were not a product defect, but rather the builders installing it wrong.
The product was only sold in New Zealand, and Bridges said the global team did not give it much attention.
"When reports of issues with fibre cement products in New Zealand market filtered through to the GMT, they were not taken as seriously as required at the start, and not taken as seriously as they should have been, and we did not take steps to address them. I say this with the benefit of hindsight.
"New Zealand was not a focus when there were massive market penetration opportunities in the United States," Bridges said.
Bridges left the GMT in late 2000. The cladding continued to be manufactured and sold in New Zealand until 2005.
The defendant's lawyer, Jack Hodder QC, immediately disputed some of Bridges' recall, including facts like which year he moved to the United States.
"You say in 2001 you were transferred to the US head office in Mission Viejo. The document we have on the screen is dated October 1998. Do you think the document might have it right?
Bridges responded: "I'm basing my evidence on my memory. The organisational changes might have occurred prior to physical relocation... and you know, it was 20 years ago."
Hodder went on to challenge the likelihood of Bridges having much knowledge of the product, saying he did not have responsibility for New Zealand operations, nor the manufacturing of Harditex.
However through his hours of evidence Bridges recalled a significant amount of detail about the time.
The trial before Justice Whata continues, and will likely go through to September.