Tan Republic Pty Ltd (ACN 147 290 926) v Isabella Shop Fitout & Design Pty Ltd (ACN 147 193 815) & Ors [2013] NSWDC 320
The plaintiff entered the design contract with a non-existent entity, Bella Retail Design Pty Ltd, so in substance contracted with the second defendant personally. The fitout contract was entered into with the first defendant. The second defendant made the pleaded misleading representations, assumed responsibility...
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 June 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Claim for Damages for Breach of Contract, Negligence and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Arising From Shop Fitout Design and Works / Principal Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants; judgment for the third defendant against the plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- ['identification of Contracting Parties' 'fictitious or Sham Corporate Entities' 'australian Business Numbers and Australian Company Numbers' 'shop Fitout Design and Construction' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'concurrent Wrongdoers and Proportionate Liability' 'contributory Negligence' 'quantum of Damages']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages for Breach of Contract, Negligence and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Arising From Shop Fitout Design and Works / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the plaintiff contracted with any corporation, or with individuals conducting the shopfitting business under fictitious or misleading names.' 'Whether the defendants made misleading or deceptive representations about certification, development approval, council approvals and responsibility for the fitout process.' 'Whether the design and fitout work was negligent or in breach of contract.' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.' "Whether the lessor, project manager, the plaintiff's solicitor or his employer were concurrent wrongdoers." 'Whether the third defendant was personally liable.' 'What damages were recoverable for rectification, consequential loss and consumer law loss.']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff entered the design contract with a non-existent entity, Bella Retail Design Pty Ltd, so in substance contracted with the second defendant personally. The fitout contract was entered into with the first defendant. The second defendant made the pleaded misleading representations, assumed responsibility for approvals and dealings with centre management, negligently designed the works, caused the core holes problem and proposed an unworkable raised-floor solution; the fitout work was also defective. The first and second defendants were liable, while the plaintiff failed to prove any cause of action against the third defendant. The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent and...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants; judgment for the third defendant against the plaintiff.
Orders
- ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants.' 'Judgment for the third defendant against the plaintiff.' 'Parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the calculation of damages and the agreed sums for GST and interest.' 'Liberty to apply in relation to costs.' 'Exhibits retained for...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment