Billingham v Schluter trading as Better Building Inspections Qld

Case

[2018] QCATA 165

1 November 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Billingham v Schluter trading as Better Building Inspections Qld [2018] QCATA 165 [2018] QCATA 165 1 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Billingham, sought to appeal against the decision of the tribunal which dismissed their claim for damages and costs against Mr Schluter, a building inspector. The Billinghams alleged that Mr Schluter was negligent in his pre-purchase inspection of a residential property they had purchased, and that his failure to report on the condition of a western retaining wall resulted in them suffering loss. The tribunal held that Mr Schluter's inspection was in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and that the Billinghams had not proven they suffered loss from his failure to report on the limitations of the inspection. The central legal issues were whether the Billinghams had suffered loss from Mr Schluter's failure to note the limitations on his inspection, and whether the Billinghams were entitled to damages despite the tribunal finding a breach of contract. The tribunal found that Mr Schluter's inspection complied with the Australian Standard, which required a visible inspection of all accessible areas without dismantling. The standard also required that any areas not inspected be identified, along with the factors preventing inspection. The tribunal accepted that Mr Schluter was required to report on the restrictions preventing him from inspecting the western retaining wall, but found that the Billinghams had not proved they suffered loss as a result of this failure. The tribunal therefore dismissed the Billinghams' application for damages and costs. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the tribunal's decision and remitting the matter for assessment of the Billinghams' entitlement to damages and consideration of any application for costs. The court held that the tribunal erred in failing to consider the Billinghams' entitlement to nominal damages for the breach of contract. The appeal was allowed, the tribunal's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the tribunal for further consideration of the Billinghams' entitlement to damages and any application for costs.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Contract Law

  • Tort Law

Legal Concepts

  • Contract Formation

  • Breach of Contract

  • Unconscionable Conduct

  • Causation

  • Negligence

  • Compensatory Damages

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

8

Quaill v Dal Ponte [2024] QCAT 342
Cases Cited

20

Statutory Material Cited

2