Mir Bros Trading Co Pty Ltd v Cavasinni Constructions Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] NSWSC 1873

Mir Bros Trading Co Pty Ltd v Cavasinni Constructions Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] NSWSC 1873

The only actionable breach not statute barred arose in relation to the boundary with Lot 92, where Cavasinni Constructions failed to construct walls to agreed standard and failed to reinstate the plaintiff’s land. The contractual claim related to Lots 2 and 3 was statute-barred by operation of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The evidence supported damages for increased development costs attributable to Lot 92, not for other boundary sections. Alternative causes in trespass, nuisance, negligence, and misleading conduct failed because access was under licence, terms were agreed, no misleading representations arose, no injury to amenity or value was shown, and duty of care was excluded by...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Orders
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $160,000 in damages for breach of contract; claims otherwise dismissed as against the first defendant; judgment for the second and third defendants against the plaintiff on all causes of action pleaded against them.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'principal and Agent' 'limitation Periods' 'trespass' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'negligence']
['contract Law' 'tort Law' 'commercial Law'] ['breach of Contract' 'principal and Agent' 'limitation Periods' 'trespass' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'negligence']

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

Principal Judgment / Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defendants breached contract concerning retaining walls and land reinstatement' 'Limitation period for contractual claim' 'Whether defendants trespassed or committed nuisance' 'Whether defendants engaged in misleading conduct' 'Duty of care under Conveyancing Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The only actionable breach not statute barred arose in relation to the boundary with Lot 92, where Cavasinni Constructions failed to construct walls to agreed standard and failed to reinstate the plaintiff’s land. The contractual claim related to Lots 2 and 3 was statute-barred by operation of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The evidence supported damages for increased development costs attributable to Lot 92, not for other boundary sections. Alternative causes in trespass, nuisance, negligence, and misleading conduct failed because access was under licence, terms were agreed, no misleading representations arose, no injury to amenity or value was shown, and duty of care was excluded by...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $160,000 in damages for breach of contract; claims otherwise dismissed as against the first defendant; judgment for the second and third defendants against the plaintiff on all causes of action pleaded against them.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $160,000 in damages for breach of contract.' 'The claims in the further amended statement of claim are otherwise dismissed as against the first defendant.' 'Judgment for the second and third defendants against the plaintiff on all causes of action pleaded...