Vagg v Routledge [2020] NSWSC 88

Vagg v Routledge [2020] NSWSC 88

The Builders breached several mandatory statutory warranties under s 18B of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) regarding the quality of work, materials, and compliance with laws. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the reasonable costs of rectification less an allowance for betterment. Plaintiffs’ claim for solatium is denied due to lack of evidence reaching the statutory threshold for non-economic loss. The Builders’ cross-claim is dismissed for want of evidence.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Robert Vagg; Second Plaintiff: Frances Vagg; First Defendant: Robert Routledge; Second Defendant: Wendy Routledge; Third Defendant: TT Architecture (ACT) Pty Limited; Fourth Defendant: D&C Ferguson Building Inspection Services Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants.
Legal Topics
Breach of Statutory Warranties, Home Building Act 1989 (nsw), Limitation Period, Expert Evidence, Damages, Betterment, Solatium
Equity Building and Construction Breach of Statutory Warranties Home Building Act 1989 (nsw) Limitation Period Expert Evidence Damages Betterment +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Vagg

First Plaintiff

Frances Vagg

Second Plaintiff

Robert Routledge

First Defendant

Wendy Routledge

Second Defendant

TT Architecture (ACT) Pty Limited

Third Defendant

D&C Ferguson Building Inspection Services Pty Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was breach of statutory warranties in the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), s 18B
  2. 2 Whether 2014 amendments to s 18E Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) were retroactive
  3. 3 Admissibility and adequacy of expert evidence under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The Builders breached several mandatory statutory warranties under s 18B of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) regarding the quality of work, materials, and compliance with laws. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the reasonable costs of rectification less an allowance for betterment. Plaintiffs’ claim for solatium is denied due to lack of evidence reaching the statutory threshold for non-economic loss. The Builders’ cross-claim is dismissed for want of evidence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants in the sum of $1,469,009.81.
  • The first and second defendants' cross-claim against the plaintiffs is dismissed.