Taylor v Chapman & Anor [2003] NSWSC 992

Taylor v Chapman & Anor [2003] NSWSC 992

The first defendant's brain injury caused only a temporary inability to undertake or supervise the building work from 15 April 2000 until about September 2000. In those circumstances, performance after the injury was not so radically different from the contractual undertaking as to invoke the doctrine of frustration. The Tribunal therefore erred in law in finding the contract frustrated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Decision / Appeal on a Question of Law From a Preliminary Finding That the Building Contract Was Frustrated
Outcome
Appeal upheld; matter remitted to the Tribunal Member to be determined according to law; defendants ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the summons as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['frustration of Contract' 'residential Building Contract' 'appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'temporary Incapacity to Perform or Supervise Building Work']
['contract Law' 'administrative Law' 'home Building Law'] ['frustration of Contract' 'residential Building Contract' 'appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal' 'temporary Incapacity to Perform or Supervise Building Work']

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

Appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Decision / Appeal on a Question of Law From a Preliminary Finding That the Building Contract Was Frustrated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Senior Member erred in law in finding that the building contract between the plaintiffs and the first defendant was frustrated on 15 April 2000.' "Whether the first defendant's temporary inability to undertake or supervise the work made performance of the building contract a thing radically different from that contracted for."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant's brain injury caused only a temporary inability to undertake or supervise the building work from 15 April 2000 until about September 2000. In those circumstances, performance after the injury was not so radically different from the contractual undertaking as to invoke the doctrine of frustration. The Tribunal therefore erred in law in finding the contract frustrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; matter remitted to the Tribunal Member to be determined according to law; defendants ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the summons as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'This matter is remitted to the Tribunal Member to be determined according to law.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the summons as agreed or assessed."]