Morris v Leaney [2022] NSWCA 95

Morris v Leaney [2022] NSWCA 95

Although the primary judge erred in reasoning that the appellants suffered no loss on a no transaction hypothesis, the appellants failed to establish that proper discharge of the respondent's contractual or tortious duties would have caused them not to undertake the renovations. The respondent could have discharged the relevant duty by warning in writing that he was unable or unqualified to give an accurate estimate and advising the appellants to obtain an estimate from a properly qualified professional; the evidence did not show that the appellants would have sought such advice or abandoned the project. Even if the respondent had been obliged to say the objectives could not be achieved...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Professional Negligence, Breach of Contract and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Claims Against an Architect / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales Judgment in Morris V Leaney [2021] NSWDC 224
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
["architect's Duty to Advise About Likely Construction Costs" 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'no Transaction Damages' 'factual Causation' 'least Onerous Mode of Contractual Performance' 'cost Plus Building Contract']
['professional Negligence' 'contract' 'tort' 'australian Consumer Law' 'damages'] ["architect's Duty to Advise About Likely Construction Costs" 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'no Transaction Damages' 'factual Causation' 'least Onerous Mode of Contractual Performance' 'cost Plus Building Contract']

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 Appeal Concerning Professional Negligence, Breach of Contract and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Claims Against an Architect / Appeal From the District Court of New South Wales Judgment in Morris V Leaney [2021] NSWDC 224

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge found, or the Court should find, that the respondent was obliged to advise the appellants that they could not achieve their renovation objectives for their budget of $600,000 and that, if so advised, they would not have undertaken the renovations.' 'Whether, assuming that counterfactual, the primary judge erred in concluding that the appellants suffered no loss and awarding only nominal damages.' "Whether the respondent's breach of contractual and tortious duties caused the appellants to undertake the renovations."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the primary judge erred in reasoning that the appellants suffered no loss on a no transaction hypothesis, the appellants failed to establish that proper discharge of the respondent's contractual or tortious duties would have caused them not to undertake the renovations. The respondent could have discharged the relevant duty by warning in writing that he was unable or unqualified to give an accurate estimate and advising the appellants to obtain an estimate from a properly qualified professional; the evidence did not show that the appellants would have sought such advice or abandoned the project. Even if the respondent had been obliged to say the objectives could not be achieved...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "The Appellants pay the Respondent's costs of the Appeal."]