James Otley Land v Adaptive Constructions [2014] NSWSC 638

James Otley Land v Adaptive Constructions [2014] NSWSC 638

The Court was satisfied, based on the unrebutted evidence and the defects schedule, that the building, waterproofing, and engineering works were defective and that the plaintiff is entitled to the claimed rectification costs (except for two excluded items). The statutory warranties and common law duties of care were breached, warranting the award of damages as specified.

Parties
Plaintiff: James Otley Land; First Defendant: Adaptive Constructions Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Andrew Gerakis; Third Defendant: Michael Gerakis; Fourth Defendant: R Balas Engineering Pty Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Stephen Pinn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Building and Construction / Judgment After Undefended Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Statutory Warranties, Defective Building Work, Damages, Rectification Costs, Duty of Care, Application of UCPR R 29.7
Building and Construction Civil Procedure Statutory Warranties Defective Building Work Damages Rectification Costs Duty of Care Application of UCPR R 29.7

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Otley Land

Plaintiff

Adaptive Constructions Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Andrew Gerakis

Second Defendant

Michael Gerakis

Third Defendant

R Balas Engineering Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Stephen Pinn

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Building and Construction / Judgment After Undefended Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defective building and waterproofing work occurred
  2. 2 Whether costs of rectification are disproportionate
  3. 3 Whether sufficient evidence supports claims for defective building work

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied, based on the unrebutted evidence and the defects schedule, that the building, waterproofing, and engineering works were defective and that the plaintiff is entitled to the claimed rectification costs (except for two excluded items). The statutory warranties and common law duties of care were breached, warranting the award of damages as specified.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $616,942.
  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants in the sum of $344,434.