Zhang and Mills v JSW Property Projects Pty Ltd and Ors [2021] NSWDC 655

Zhang and Mills v JSW Property Projects Pty Ltd and Ors [2021] NSWDC 655

Judgment for the Second Defendant; Haiden Walsh was not a contracting party (only JSW was). Plaintiffs failed to establish reliance and loss in relation to the alleged misleading or deceptive representations. Breaches of statutory warranties under the Home Building Act not established against Walsh. Plaintiffs also failed to prove loss with necessary precision. No general stay or dismissal of proceedings, but parts of the plaintiffs' expert evidence were excluded due to prejudice from the demolition of the property.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the Second Defendant against the Plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Statutory Warranties' 'identification of Contracting Parties' 'loss and Damage' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'stay of Proceedings' 'expert Evidence' 'defective Building Works']
['contract Law' 'consumer Law' 'building and Construction Law'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Statutory Warranties' 'identification of Contracting Parties' 'loss and Damage' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'stay of Proceedings' 'expert Evidence' 'defective Building Works']

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 After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Haiden Walsh was a contracting party or only the company JSW Property Projects Pty Ltd' 'Whether the alleged representations by Walsh/JSW were misleading or deceptive under the Australian Consumer Law' 'Whether any breach of statutory warranties occurred under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)' 'Whether loss and damage were established by the plaintiffs as a result of the alleged conduct' 'Whether destruction of the property by the plaintiffs created unfairness or prejudiced a fair trial']

Ratio Decidendi

Judgment for the Second Defendant; Haiden Walsh was not a contracting party (only JSW was). Plaintiffs failed to establish reliance and loss in relation to the alleged misleading or deceptive representations. Breaches of statutory warranties under the Home Building Act not established against Walsh. Plaintiffs also failed to prove loss with necessary precision. No general stay or dismissal of proceedings, but parts of the plaintiffs' expert evidence were excluded due to prejudice from the demolition of the property.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Second Defendant against the Plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['There be judgment and verdict for the Second Defendant against the Plaintiffs.' 'Any party wishing to be heard on the issue of costs to notify the associate by 23 December 2021 noon.' 'If there is notification, parties to file and serve evidence and submissions on costs as directed (dates specified).' "If no...