Adelaide Marble Specialists Pty Ltd v Ragunath - [2024] SASCA 23

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Civil)
ADELAIDE MARBLE SPECIALISTS PTY LTD v RAGUNATH
[2024] SASCA 23
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (ex tempore)
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, the Honourable Justice Doyle and the Honourable Justice Bleby)
8 March 2024
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WHEN APPEAL LIES - FROM SUPREME COURT - BY LEAVE OF COURT - GENERALLY
DAMAGES - ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT - PROOF AND EVIDENCE
CONTRACTS - BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS - PERFORMANCE OF WORK - REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT - DAMAGES
The appellant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court in which an appeal from a judgment of a Magistrate was dismissed.
The respondents retained the appellant builder to carry out residential building work. Disputes arose and the respondents issued proceedings in the Magistrates Court seeking damages slightly in excess of $20,000 for what they claimed was defective and incomplete work. After the Magistrate had indicated an intention to enter judgment in favour of the respondents, he invited further submissions in relation to an aspect of the damages relating to the cost of replacement splashbacks, and ultimately included an amount of approximately $6,000 for this item in a total judgment of $15,230 (plus interest).
The appellant appealed to a single judge of the Supreme Court, contending that the Magistrate erred in finding that the respondent had proved the reasonable cost of replacing the splashbacks and hence by increasing the damages. The single judge dismissed all grounds of appeal.
The appellant seeks leave to appeal to contend that the Magistrate and single judge erred in finding that the respondents had proved the reasonable cost of replacing the splashbacks.
Held, per Doyle JA (Kourakis CJ and Bleby JA agreeing), dismissing the application for leave to appeal:
1.In circumstances where there is no obvious merit in the proposed appeal, the appeal does not raise any issue of general principle or importance, the time and costs associated with the proceedings are out of proportion to the issues at stake, and leaving the judgment below to stand would not occasion any substantial injustice, the interests of justice do not support a grant of leave to appeal.

Adelaide Marble Specialists Pty Ltd v Ragunath [2023] SASC 139; Southern Wire Pty Ltd v Clover Communications Pty Ltd [2023] SASCA 18, considered.

ADELAIDE MARBLE SPECIALISTS PTY LTD v RAGUNATH & ANOR
[2024] SASCA 23
Court of Appeal – Civil: Kourakis CJ, Doyle and Bleby JJA

KOURAKIS CJ: I agree with the reasons of Doyle JA, and agree that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.
DOYLE JA: This is an application for leave to appeal.
The respondent owners retained the applicant builder to carry out some residential building work. Disputes arose and the owners issued proceedings in the Magistrates Court seeking damages of slightly in excess of $20,000 for what they claimed was defective and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adelaide Marble Specialists Pty Ltd v Ragunath and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] SASCA 23
Decision Date: 8 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adelaide Marble Specialists Pty Ltd appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of a single judge who had awarded damages to the respondent, Mr. Ragunath, for breach of contract. The dispute concerned the performance of work by the appellant under a contract for the supply and installation of marble.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the single judge had erred in assessing the damages awarded to Mr. Ragunath. Specifically, the appeal raised questions regarding the sufficiency of the evidence presented to support the quantum of damages awarded for the breach of contract, and whether the principles of assessing damages for defective building work had been correctly applied.

The Court considered the principles governing the assessment of damages for breach of contract, particularly in the context of building and construction disputes. It emphasised the need for a plaintiff to provide sufficient evidence to establish the loss or damage claimed. The Court found that the evidence before the single judge was inadequate to support the specific amount of damages awarded, as it did not sufficiently demonstrate the cost of rectifying the defective work or the diminution in value of the property. The Court applied the principle that damages should compensate the innocent party for their actual loss, and that speculative claims are not recoverable.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order for damages made by the single judge, and remitted the assessment of damages back to the trial judge for redetermination, with liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence.

Orders