Alexandrou v Pacific Pest Control Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 193

Alexandrou v Pacific Pest Control Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 193

The plaintiffs failed to prove that any termite activity or termite damage was observable or detectable by a prudent pest inspector conducting the contracted visual inspection on 16 December 2013, or that Mr Francis omitted any precaution, made any error, or failed to report any visible sign. The extensive damage discovered after settlement, about forty days later and in many cases after invasive steps or removal of linings, did not support the necessary inference of breach. The alleged admission by Mr Francis was not established. Accordingly the defendants did not breach the implied term or s 60 Australian Consumer Law guarantee and were not negligent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim in Negligence and Breach of Contract Concerning a Pre Purchase Building Condition and Pest Inspection Report / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants; plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of proceedings.
Legal Topics
['pre Purchase Pest Inspection' 'duty of Care' 'due Skill and Care' 'visual Inspection Limitations' 'termite Damage' 'proof of Breach' 'expert Evidence' 'jones V Dunkell Inference' 'damages Assessment']
['negligence' 'contract Law' 'australian Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure' 'conveyancing'] ['pre Purchase Pest Inspection' 'duty of Care' 'due Skill and Care' 'visual Inspection Limitations' 'termite Damage' 'proof of Breach' 'expert Evidence' 'jones V Dunkell Inference' 'damages Assessment']

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 in Negligence and Breach of Contract Concerning a Pre Purchase Building Condition and Pest Inspection Report / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants failed to exercise due skill and care in conducting and reporting on a visual pre-purchase building and pest inspection on 16 December 2013.' 'Whether termite activity or termite damage later discovered by the plaintiffs was observable or detectable by a prudent pest inspector during the visual inspection.' 'Whether Mr Francis admitted on 28 January 2014 that he had missed termites during the earlier inspection.' 'Whether the plaintiffs proved breach of an implied contractual term, the s 60 Australian Consumer Law guarantee, or common law negligence.' 'What damages would have been assessed if liability had been established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to prove that any termite activity or termite damage was observable or detectable by a prudent pest inspector conducting the contracted visual inspection on 16 December 2013, or that Mr Francis omitted any precaution, made any error, or failed to report any visible sign. The extensive damage discovered after settlement, about forty days later and in many cases after invasive steps or removal of linings, did not support the necessary inference of breach. The alleged admission by Mr Francis was not established. Accordingly the defendants did not breach the implied term or s 60 Australian Consumer Law guarantee and were not negligent.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants; plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the defendants.' "Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of proceedings."]