Swift v Armitage Designer Homes Pty Limited [2008] NSWDC 269

Swift v Armitage Designer Homes Pty Limited [2008] NSWDC 269

Armitage was liable for breach of the building contract and applicable statutory implied terms, with damages assessed by reference to the accepted remedial works in the Scott Schedule, excluding items not proved to be required by the contract and excluding builder's profit, and including rent and GST. The alleged pre-contract misleading or deceptive representations were not proved. However, after the contract was executed, Armitage represented that it had the expertise to complete the Styrocon panel work properly when that representation had no factual basis, and the resulting defective and unsatisfactory wall work caused loss. Mr Murphy had actual knowledge of the representations and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages for Breach of Building Contract and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Judgment After Hearing in the NSW District Court; Claim Had Been Transferred From the Consumer Claims and Tenancy Tribunal
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiffs against the first defendant in the sum of $612,094.52; verdict for the plaintiffs against the second defendant in the sum of $83,260.10.
Legal Topics
['building Contract Damages' 'home Building Statutory Implied Terms' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pre Contractual Representations' 'post Contractual Representations' 'remedial Building Work' 'personal Liability for Corporate Conduct']
['building and Construction' 'contract Law' 'trade Practices and Consumer Protection'] ['building Contract Damages' 'home Building Statutory Implied Terms' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pre Contractual Representations' 'post Contractual Representations' 'remedial Building Work' 'personal Liability for Corporate Conduct']

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 Claim for Damages for Breach of Building Contract and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Judgment After Hearing in the NSW District Court; Claim Had Been Transferred From the Consumer Claims and Tenancy Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Armitage Designer Homes Pty Limited breached its contract to build a house for the plaintiffs and, if so, the amount recoverable by way of compensation.' 'Whether Alan Murphy engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, causing loss to the plaintiffs.' 'Whether alleged pre-contract representations about completion within 32 weeks, fixed price and technical capacity contravened Trade Practices Act 1974, s 52.' 'Whether post-contract conduct concerning the Styrocon wall panels was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.' 'Whether Mr Murphy had actual knowledge of the misleading or deceptive conduct so that its consequences were attributable to him personally.']

Ratio Decidendi

Armitage was liable for breach of the building contract and applicable statutory implied terms, with damages assessed by reference to the accepted remedial works in the Scott Schedule, excluding items not proved to be required by the contract and excluding builder's profit, and including rent and GST. The alleged pre-contract misleading or deceptive representations were not proved. However, after the contract was executed, Armitage represented that it had the expertise to complete the Styrocon panel work properly when that representation had no factual basis, and the resulting defective and unsatisfactory wall work caused loss. Mr Murphy had actual knowledge of the representations and...

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiffs against the first defendant in the sum of $612,094.52; verdict for the plaintiffs against the second defendant in the sum of $83,260.10.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiffs against the first defendant in the sum of $612,094.52' 'Verdict for the plaintiffs against the second defendant in the sum of $83,260.10']