Craig Casey (First Plaintiff) Katy Casey (Second Plaintiff) Hayden Retford trading as Skope Construction (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel: M Klooster (Plaintiffs) D Neggo (Defendant) Solicitors: KLH & Associates (Plaintiffs) PBL Law Group (Defendant)
File Number(s):
2023/00221664
Publication restriction:
Nil
JUDGMENT
On 16 July 2021, the plaintiffs, Mr Craig Casey and Ms Katy Casey, entered into a written contract with the defendant, Mr Hayden Retford, a builder, which provided for Mr Retford to undertake alterations and additions to the dwelling (“the house”) on land owned by Mr and Ms Casey (“the property”) for the price of $624,475.
In their amended statement of claim, in summary, the plaintiffs allege that, by 19 December 2022, the defendant was in breach of contract, and in breach of the Home Building Act 1989 (“the Act”), in that he had failed to complete the works provided for in the contract within 26 weeks from the date of the commencement of the works. It was further alleged that some of the work done was defective and had not been rectified. It is common ground that the works the subject of the contract are “residential building works” under the Act.
The plaintiffs also allege, in their amended statement of claim, that they paid $818,862.51 for the works and that this sum represented an overpayment. They allege that the defendant has received a benefit at their expense, that it would be unjust or unconscionable for the defendant to retain that benefit and that the defendant is liable to repay to them the amount of the overpayment.
The plaintiffs say that they terminated the contract by email to the defendant on 19…
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.
Continue reading Casey v Retford
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Casey v Retford [2025] NSWDC 1
Case
[2025] NSWDC 1
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiffs, Casey, sought damages from the defendant, Retford, for incomplete work and defects in a construction project. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant failed to complete the construction of a residential property according to the contract and that the work that was completed contained significant defects. The defendant denied the claims and counter-claimed for outstanding payment for work performed.
The court was required to determine whether the defendant breached the contract by failing to complete the work and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the incomplete work and defects. The court also had to decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to restitution for any overpayment made to the defendant and whether the defendant was entitled to payment for the work that he had completed.
The court found that the defendant did breach the contract by failing to complete the work and that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the incomplete work and defects. The court also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution for any overpayment made to the defendant as the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim. The court further found that the defendant was entitled to payment for the work that he had completed, but the amount was less than what the plaintiffs had previously paid to the defendant. The court ordered judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $117,566.20 and judgment for the defendant on the cross-claim in the sum of $814.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $117,566.20.
(2) Judgment for the defendant on the cross-claim in the sum of $814.