Aussie Blinds and Canvas Products Pty Ltd v Smith - [2015] SADC 154

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application for Review)
AUSSIE BLINDS AND CANVAS PRODUCTS PTY LTD v SMITH AND ANOR
[2015] SADC 154
Judgment of His Honour Judge Barrett
6 November 2015
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - APPORTIONMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY AND DAMAGES
CONTRACTS - BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS - PERFORMANCE OF WORK - REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT - DAMAGES - OTHER MATTERS
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - WHEN TIME BEGINS TO RUN - PARTICULAR CAUSES OF ACTION
The applicants seek a review of a Minor Civil Decision finding them negligent in erecting a sail cloth in the respondent's back yard. The respondents sued some 8 years after the sail cloth was erected, but only 4 years after damage was caused to the sail cloth by high winds. The Learned Special Magistrate found that the claim was not statue barred because the claim was of loss suffered as a result of defective building work under the Development Act where the time limit is 10 years. The Learned Special Magistrate found the applicants negligent and he awarded the respondents damaged of $6,000.
Held: The application should be allowed but only on the ground that the Learned Special Magistrate had inadvertently included an item in the quantum of damages which he had, correctly, found should not be included. There was no error in any other aspect of the judgment.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 s 38(7)(b), s 38(7)(e), s 38(8); Limitations of Actions Act 1936 s 35; Development Act 1993 s 73; Building Act 1993 (Vic) s 134, referred to.
Brirek Industries Pty Ltd v McKenzie Group Consulting Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 165, considered.

AUSSIE BLINDS AND CANVAS PRODUCTS PTY LTD v SMITH AND ANOR
[2015] SADC 154

This is an application to review a Minor Civil Decision delivered by a magistrate on 30 January 2015. The case concerns the erection of a sail cloth in the backyard of the respondents’ house at Novar Gardens. The applicants are professional sail cloth installers. They put up the sail cloth in January 2005. The Learned Special Magistrate found that the applicants had been negligent in erecting the sail cloth. His Honour awarded $6,000, being slightly reduced from the amount he would have ordered by reason of the jurisdictional limit on Minor Civil Decisions.
Grounds for review
Both the applicants and the respondents were unrepresented at the hearing before the Learned Special Magistrate and before me. Broadly speaking the applicants seek a review on three bases:
The Learned Special Magistrate was in error in holding that the respondents’ claim was not lodged out of time.
The Learned Special Magistrate was wrong to find the applicants negligent.
The Learned Special Magistrate was wrong to find that the respondents were not guilty of contributory negligence.
That the Learned Special Magistrate erred in fixing the quantum of damages.
Criteria on review
The right to seek a review to this court is pursuant to s 38(6) of the Magistrates Court Act 1991. On a…

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 Aussie Blinds and Canvas Products Pty Ltd v Smith 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: [2015] SADC 154
Decision Date: 6 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aussie Blinds and Canvas Products Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Smith, claiming compensation for alleged negligence and breach of contract. The dispute arose from a situation where Smith had engaged Aussie Blinds to manufacture and install blinds in his property. After the installation, Smith discovered defects and alleged that Aussie Blinds had failed to meet the contractual standards and had acted negligently. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issues revolved around the allocation of responsibility for the defects and the calculation of damages.

The court had to determine whether Aussie Blinds was liable for the defects in the blinds and, if so, the extent of their liability. The court also needed to decide the appropriate amount of damages payable to Smith. Another critical aspect was whether the limitation period for bringing the claim had expired. Aussie Blinds argued that the defects were latent and only became apparent after a period of time, thereby extending the limitation period. Smith contended that the defects were apparent and should have been discovered sooner.

The court found that Aussie Blinds was indeed liable for the defects and was responsible for a significant portion of the damages. The court concluded that the limitation period began to run from the date of installation, and since Smith had discovered the defects within a reasonable timeframe, the claim was not statute-barred. The court held that the defects were partly due to the negligence of Aussie Blinds and partly due to Smith's failure to properly inspect the work. The court apportioned responsibility and damages accordingly, reducing Aussie Blinds' liability based on Smith's contributory negligence. The court ordered Aussie Blinds to pay damages to Smith, reflecting the reduced liability.

Orders