Schrader v David Broach t/as David Broach Building Services [2023] NSWDC 97

Schrader v David Broach t/as David Broach Building Services [2023] NSWDC 97

The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed because, on the evidence, the key representations forming the basis of the misleading or deceptive conduct claim were not established, there was a clear contractual warning against reliance on cost estimates, no actionable breach of good faith or unconscionability was made out, alleged defective work was either incomplete or not shown as defective except for the stairs (which did not entitle to damages as the contract had not been lawfully terminated), and the defendant’s cross-claim failed as no valid payment claims were made pursuant to the contract and he had been paid for the work outside the contract scope.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Statement of Claim dismissed with costs. Cross-Claim dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['australian Consumer Law' 'unconscionability' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'defective Work' 'cost Plus Contract' 'breach of Contract' 'implied Terms' 'good Faith' 'quantum Meruit' 'damages' 'repudiation of Contract']
['building and Construction' 'contract'] ['australian Consumer Law' 'unconscionability' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'defective Work' 'cost Plus Contract' 'breach of Contract' 'implied Terms' 'good Faith' 'quantum Meruit' 'damages' 'repudiation of Contract']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or made false or misleading representations under ss 18, 29 of the Australian Consumer Law before contract formation' 'Whether the defendant breached contractual obligations, including any implied duty of good faith, and whether there was unconscionable conduct under s 21 of the ACL post contract' 'Whether there was defective work and the measure of damages, if any' 'Whether the cross-claim for unpaid invoices or quantum meruit is made out']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed because, on the evidence, the key representations forming the basis of the misleading or deceptive conduct claim were not established, there was a clear contractual warning against reliance on cost estimates, no actionable breach of good faith or unconscionability was made out, alleged defective work was either incomplete or not shown as defective except for the stairs (which did not entitle to damages as the contract had not been lawfully terminated), and the defendant’s cross-claim failed as no valid payment claims were made pursuant to the contract and he had been paid for the work outside the contract scope.

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim dismissed with costs. Cross-Claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Statement of Claim be dismissed with costs.' 'The Cross-Claim be dismissed with costs.']