AAD Build Pty Ltd v John and Beverley Garside; John and Beverley Garside v AAD Build Pty Ltd and Andrew Dwight
Case
•
[2015] NSWCATCD 7
•15 January 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
AAD Build Pty Ltd v John and Beverley Garside; John and Beverley Garside v AAD Build Pty Ltd and Andrew Dwight [2015] NSWCATCD 7
[2015] NSWCATCD 7
15 January 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties to this case were AAD Build Pty Ltd, John and Beverley Garside, and Andrew Dwight. AAD Build, the builder, brought claims against the Garsides, the homeowners, seeking payment for outstanding completion costs and damages for failure to take reasonable care. The Garsides counter-claimed for damages for breach of contract and estoppel by convention. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The legal issues before the court were whether AAD Build was entitled to the outstanding completion costs, whether the Garsides were liable for damages for failure to take reasonable care, and whether the Garsides could rely on estoppel by convention. The court was also required to determine whether the Garsides were liable for damages for breach of contract.
The court found that AAD Build was entitled to the outstanding completion costs. The court held that the Garsides were not liable for damages for failure to take reasonable care, as the defects were not caused by their negligence. The court also held that the Garsides could not rely on estoppel by convention, as there was no promise or representation that would lead them to reasonably expect that they would not be required to pay the completion costs. The court found that the Garsides were liable for damages for breach of contract, but the amount of damages was yet to be determined.
The court dismissed both applications.
The legal issues before the court were whether AAD Build was entitled to the outstanding completion costs, whether the Garsides were liable for damages for failure to take reasonable care, and whether the Garsides could rely on estoppel by convention. The court was also required to determine whether the Garsides were liable for damages for breach of contract.
The court found that AAD Build was entitled to the outstanding completion costs. The court held that the Garsides were not liable for damages for failure to take reasonable care, as the defects were not caused by their negligence. The court also held that the Garsides could not rely on estoppel by convention, as there was no promise or representation that would lead them to reasonably expect that they would not be required to pay the completion costs. The court found that the Garsides were liable for damages for breach of contract, but the amount of damages was yet to be determined.
The court dismissed both applications.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Contract Law
-
Tort Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Unjust Enrichment
-
Damages for failure to take reasonable care
-
Estoppel by convention
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
4
MK & JA Roche Pty Ltd v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd
[2005] NSWCA 39
Moratic Pty Ltd v Gordon
[2007] NSWSC 5
Air Tahiti Nui Pty Ltd v McKenzie
[2009] NSWCA 429