Mangano v Amescorp Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 195

Mangano v Amescorp Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 195

Most alleged defects were proved against the builder and the appropriate rectification scope was generally that proposed by the plaintiffs' expert, subject to specified exclusions and a 15% global reduction. James Patrick Raad was engaged in construction work because, as sole director, nominated supervisor and an active supervisor, he had substantive control over the residential building work. In the circumstances, reasonable care required him to ensure suitable persons were engaged, properly informed and appropriately inspected. The proved defects, the absence of evidence about Richard Raad's qualifications or adequate inspections, and the available adverse inferences established breach...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Principal Judgment Concerning Claims for Damages for Alleged Residential Building Defects, Statutory Warranties Under the Home Building Act 1989, and Statutory Duty of Care Under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Quantum, Interest and Costs to Be Addressed by Short Minutes and Further Directions
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants, with quantum to be calculated by short minutes consistent with the reasons.
Legal Topics
['home Building Contract' 'implied Statutory Warranties' 'alleged Defects and Rectification Damages' 'liability of Builder' 'liability of Sole Director and Nominated Supervisor' 'design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 Duty of Care' 'construction Work' 'economic Loss' 'expert Evidence' 'adverse Inferences']
['civil Law' 'building and Construction' 'residential Building Work' 'statutory Warranties' 'negligence and Statutory Duty of Care'] ['home Building Contract' 'implied Statutory Warranties' 'alleged Defects and Rectification Damages' 'liability of Builder' 'liability of Sole Director and Nominated Supervisor' 'design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 Duty of Care' 'construction Work' 'economic Loss' 'expert Evidence' 'adverse Inferences']

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 Concerning Claims for Damages for Alleged Residential Building Defects, Statutory Warranties Under the Home Building Act 1989, and Statutory Duty of Care Under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Quantum, Interest and Costs to Be Addressed by Short Minutes and Further Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the alleged residential building defects were proved against Amescorp Pty Limited and what rectification damages flowed from them' 'Whether James Patrick Raad, as sole director and nominated supervisor who engaged in supervision and control, carried out construction work within the meaning of s 36 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020' 'What the content of the statutory duty of care under s 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 required in the circumstances' 'Whether James Patrick Raad breached the statutory duty of care and caused the plaintiffs economic loss' 'Whether unpaid invoices issued by the builder should be credited against the damages otherwise payable']

Ratio Decidendi

Most alleged defects were proved against the builder and the appropriate rectification scope was generally that proposed by the plaintiffs' expert, subject to specified exclusions and a 15% global reduction. James Patrick Raad was engaged in construction work because, as sole director, nominated supervisor and an active supervisor, he had substantive control over the residential building work. In the circumstances, reasonable care required him to ensure suitable persons were engaged, properly informed and appropriately inspected. The proved defects, the absence of evidence about Richard Raad's qualifications or adequate inspections, and the available adverse inferences established breach...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants, with quantum to be calculated by short minutes consistent with the reasons.

Orders

  • ['There will be judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants.' 'I direct the parties to bring in short minutes of order, consistent with these reasons, as to the quantum of those judgments.' 'I direct the parties to attempt to agree as to interest and costs.' 'I stand the matter over for...