Romas and Olympia Linas v John Robert Maroon, Chris Maroon and Archiform Group Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 51

Romas and Olympia Linas v John Robert Maroon, Chris Maroon and Archiform Group Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 51

The first respondent abandoned the works from 23 April 2013 and failed to complete and rectify work required under the contract. The applicants validly terminated the contract after giving notice under clause 25. The expert evidence established incomplete work costing $52,985.82 and defective work costing $8,780.37, totalling $61,766.19, for which the first respondent was liable as damages for breach of contract and statutory warranties. The overpayment claim was not proved because the applicants' variation liability was not independently assessed. The claims against the second respondent failed because no project management agreement or relevant duty based on such engagement was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Building Claim Under Section 48 A(1) of the Home Building Act 1989 / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
The applicants succeeded against the first respondent for damages for breach of contract, but the overpayment claim, the claim against the second respondent for project management services, and the Australian Consumer Law claim were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['residential Building Work' 'breach of Contract' 'statutory Warranties' 'incomplete and Defective Work' 'termination of Building Contract' 'overpayment Claim' 'project Management Services' 'australian Consumer Law Representations' 'adjournment Application' 'costs']
['home Building' 'contract Law' 'consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['residential Building Work' 'breach of Contract' 'statutory Warranties' 'incomplete and Defective Work' 'termination of Building Contract' 'overpayment Claim' 'project Management Services' 'australian Consumer Law Representations' 'adjournment Application' 'costs']

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

Building Claim Under Section 48 A(1) of the Home Building Act 1989 / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent abandoned the works and breached the building contract and statutory warranties under section 18B of the Home Building Act 1989.' 'Whether the applicants validly terminated the building contract under clause 25.' 'Whether the applicants proved damages for incomplete and defective work.' 'Whether the applicants proved an overpayment to the first respondent.' 'Whether the second respondent was liable in connection with alleged project management services or negligent supervision.' "Whether the first or second respondents were liable under the Australian Consumer Law for representations about the first respondent's licence status." 'Whether a work order should be made under section 48O(1)(c) of the Home Building Act 1989.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent abandoned the works from 23 April 2013 and failed to complete and rectify work required under the contract. The applicants validly terminated the contract after giving notice under clause 25. The expert evidence established incomplete work costing $52,985.82 and defective work costing $8,780.37, totalling $61,766.19, for which the first respondent was liable as damages for breach of contract and statutory warranties. The overpayment claim was not proved because the applicants' variation liability was not independently assessed. The claims against the second respondent failed because no project management agreement or relevant duty based on such engagement was...

Court Disposition

The applicants succeeded against the first respondent for damages for breach of contract, but the overpayment claim, the claim against the second respondent for project management services, and the Australian Consumer Law claim were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent must pay the applicants the sum of $61,766.19 within 21 days of the date of the order as damages for breach of contract.' "The applicants' claim for $14,969.00 for overpayments is dismissed." "The applicants' claim against the second respondent in connection with project management services is...