Christofidellis v Zdrilic

The case of Christofidellis v Zdrilic involved the applicants, Christofidellis, who sought to recover damages from the Zdrilics, the respondents, for breach of a duty of care by their real estate agent, Di Bello. The applicants claimed that Di Bello failed to follow their instructions to check the dimensions of a property and to adequately explain the contract. The Zdrilics denied these allegations and argued that Di Bello would have explained the contract in line with his usual practice. The case was marked by numerous disputed facts, even those that were peripheral, with both sides drawing inferences about credibility and usual practice. The applicants sought damages from the Zdrilics for the alleged breach of duty by Di Bello.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Di Bello breached his duty of care to the applicants by failing to check the dimensions of the property and by not adequately explaining the contract. The applicants argued that Di Bello should have checked the property dimensions and explained the contract thoroughly. The Zdrilics and Di Bello denied these claims, asserting that there was no instruction to check the dimensions and that Di Bello would have explained the contract as per his usual practice. The court had to determine the factual issues surrounding these claims, particularly whether the applicants' claims about the number of inspections and the nature of the contract explanation were credible.

The court carefully weighed the evidence presented by both sides and concluded that there was no breach of duty by Di Bello. The court found that there was only one inspection attended by both Pfeiffer and Christofidellis, and this took place on a Saturday in late January or early February. The court did not find the applicants' evidence about the number of joint inspections credible and concluded that there was only one inspection involving both parties. The court further found that Pfeiffer did not make any representations about the property dimensions that could be attributed to a breach of duty. Given these findings, the court dismissed the application against the second, third, and fourth respondents and their cross claims. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs, including those on the cross claims.