Farthing v Wagg and Hackett; Wagg and Hackett v Farthing [2015] NSWCATCD 12

Farthing v Wagg and Hackett; Wagg and Hackett v Farthing [2015] NSWCATCD 12

The homeowners lacked legal grounds for unilateral termination; 'work or works' in the contract refers only to physical building works, not contract administration; the breaches of documentation and cooperation requirements were not essential terms; deficiencies did not deprive the homeowners of the benefit of their bargain. Therefore, termination constituted wrongful repudiation and the builder was entitled to damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
builder's claim for damages allowed; homeowners claim for rectification partially allowed
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'wrongful Termination' 'damages' 'contract Interpretation' 'defective Work' 'mitigation of Damages']
['contract Law' 'construction Law'] ['breach of Contract' 'wrongful Termination' 'damages' 'contract Interpretation' 'defective Work' 'mitigation of Damages']

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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the homeowners had legal grounds to support unilateral termination of the contract' 'Whether the builder breached essential or inessential terms of the contract' "Whether contract administration and financial management falls within 'work or works' in the contract" 'Extent of damages payable to the builder' 'Nature and extent of building defects at termination']

Ratio Decidendi

The homeowners lacked legal grounds for unilateral termination; 'work or works' in the contract refers only to physical building works, not contract administration; the breaches of documentation and cooperation requirements were not essential terms; deficiencies did not deprive the homeowners of the benefit of their bargain. Therefore, termination constituted wrongful repudiation and the builder was entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

builder's claim for damages allowed; homeowners claim for rectification partially allowed

Orders

  • ['Homeowners to pay the builder $41,148.01 in damages for breach of contract.' 'Builder to pay homeowners $1,125.00 for rectification of defective work.' 'Homeowners to pay builder $40,023.01 within 28 days (difference between amounts above).' "Builder's costs submissions to be filed and served on homeowners within...