Bell v Greenland Design P/L

The appeal was from a judgment of the District Court in a dispute over the paving work done by Greenland Design Pty. Ltd (the plaintiff) at the residence of Colin and Janine Bell (the defendants). The primary judge found for the plaintiff for $36,493.87, dismissing the defendants' counterclaim in its entirety. The appeal challenged various findings of the primary judge, including the responsibility for drainage, the adequacy of paving levels, the thickness of the concrete base, and the cost of wastage. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court held that the primary judge was correct in finding that the plaintiff was not responsible for the inadequate drainage, the defendants had assumed responsibility for setting paving levels, and the plaintiff had substantially performed the contract in terms of the concrete base thickness. The court also upheld the primary judge's finding that the defendants agreed to pay for wastage of pavers. However, the court found that the primary judge should have held that the plaintiff breached the contract by laying the bricks on a bed of thickness at most 50 mm over much of the area of the paving, instead of the 75 mm average agreed.