MORROW AND ANOTHER V. MANNING 35/1932

MORROW AND ANOTHER V. MANNING 35/1932

The architects were negligent in two respects – failure to discover the improper gauge of lead and inadequate specification regarding the rubble bed. The respondent was entitled to damages assessed at £40 and £100 respectively, as the architect's negligence resulted in increased risk or loss. The court found no sufficient basis for the further damages allowed by the Full Court for rendering thickness or weakness, or for the claims advanced in the cross-appeal. The judgment of the Full Court was set aside, and judgment entered for the respondent for £140 on the cross action only.

Parties
Appellants: Morrow and another; Respondent: Manning
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 1932
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Full Court discharged; judgment entered for respondent for £140 on the cross action; parties' costs as ordered.
Legal Topics
Architect's Negligence, Contractual Obligations, Damages for Defective Building Work, Supervisory Duties of Architects
Contract Law Tort Law Architect's Negligence Contractual Obligations Damages for Defective Building Work Supervisory Duties of Architects

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morrow and another

Appellants

Manning

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the architects were negligent in preparation and supervision regarding several building defects
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to damages for such negligence
  3. 3 Whether damages awarded by the Full Court were correct

Ratio Decidendi

The architects were negligent in two respects – failure to discover the improper gauge of lead and inadequate specification regarding the rubble bed. The respondent was entitled to damages assessed at £40 and £100 respectively, as the architect's negligence resulted in increased risk or loss. The court found no sufficient basis for the further damages allowed by the Full Court for rendering thickness or weakness, or for the claims advanced in the cross-appeal. The judgment of the Full Court was set aside, and judgment entered for the respondent for £140 on the cross action only.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Full Court discharged; judgment entered for respondent for £140 on the cross action; parties' costs as ordered.

Orders

  • Judgment of Full Court discharged.
  • In lieu thereof, judgment of Halse Rogers J. on the cross action set aside and judgment entered for defendant respondent for £140.