Scozza v JIH Building Design Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 120

Scozza v JIH Building Design Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 120

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent failed to render the Feasibility Report, concept plan or related council meeting services with due care and skill, that the services were not reasonably fit for their disclosed purpose, or that they were not supplied within a reasonable time. The Tribunal found there was insufficient expert or professional evidence that a reasonable provider would have acted differently, that the Feasibility Report was fit for investigating feasibility subject to further reports and council liaison, that the concept plan process gave the applicant a better understanding of approval...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim Alleging Breaches of Australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees in the Supply of Building Design Services / Final Hearing After the Appeal Panel Allowed an Appeal and Remitted the Proceedings to the Tribunal for Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'supply of Services' 'due Care and Skill' 'fitness for a Particular Purpose' 'reasonable Time for Supply' 'remedies for Breach of Consumer Guarantees' 'consequential Loss']
['consumer Law' 'contract Law'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'supply of Services' 'due Care and Skill' 'fitness for a Particular Purpose' 'reasonable Time for Supply' 'remedies for Breach of Consumer Guarantees' 'consequential Loss']

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

Consumer Claim Alleging Breaches of Australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees in the Supply of Building Design Services / Final Hearing After the Appeal Panel Allowed an Appeal and Remitted the Proceedings to the Tribunal for Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent breached the guarantee as to due care and skill under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW) in preparing the Feasibility Report and concept plan and in relation to the council meeting.' 'Whether the respondent breached the guarantee as to fitness for a particular purpose under s 61 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW).' 'Whether the respondent breached the guarantee as to reasonable time for supply under s 62 of the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW).' 'Whether the applicant proved loss or damage and entitlement to any remedy under the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (NSW).' 'Whether the parties entered into one or more contracts and what the scope of those contracts was.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent failed to render the Feasibility Report, concept plan or related council meeting services with due care and skill, that the services were not reasonably fit for their disclosed purpose, or that they were not supplied within a reasonable time. The Tribunal found there was insufficient expert or professional evidence that a reasonable provider would have acted differently, that the Feasibility Report was fit for investigating feasibility subject to further reports and council liaison, that the concept plan process gave the applicant a better understanding of approval...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']