Cryer v Flocchini [2017] NSWDC 247

Cryer v Flocchini [2017] NSWDC 247

The defendant breached specific oral stipulations in the contract by performing defective concreting work, including supplying a substantial proportion of concrete below the agreed 32 mpa durability and failing to meet required drainage, thickness, reinforcement and workmanship standards. The unchallenged expert evidence established that rectification was not viable and that complete demolition and reconstruction were required, causing both direct rectification costs and consequential economic losses proved by the plaintiffs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Claim for Damages Arising From Defective Concreting Work / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for $665,765.46, with the defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs.
Legal Topics
['oral Contract' 'defective Workmanship' 'concrete Slabs for Dairy and Fodder Shed' 'consequential Economic Loss' 'default Judgment Set Aside' 'unchallenged Expert Evidence']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'damages'] ['oral Contract' 'defective Workmanship' 'concrete Slabs for Dairy and Fodder Shed' 'consequential Economic Loss' 'default Judgment Set Aside' 'unchallenged Expert Evidence']

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 Contract Claim for Damages Arising From Defective Concreting Work / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant breached the oral contract to construct concrete slabs and a concourse according to the plaintiffs' specifications." 'Whether the concrete work was defective and required demolition rather than rectification.' 'What damages, including consequential economic losses, flowed from the defective work.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached specific oral stipulations in the contract by performing defective concreting work, including supplying a substantial proportion of concrete below the agreed 32 mpa durability and failing to meet required drainage, thickness, reinforcement and workmanship standards. The unchallenged expert evidence established that rectification was not viable and that complete demolition and reconstruction were required, causing both direct rectification costs and consequential economic losses proved by the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for $665,765.46, with the defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for $665,765.46.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs."]