Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Delaney v Winn [2015] NSWCA 124 Hearing dates: 27 March 2015 Date of orders: 12 May 2015 Decision date: 12 May 2015 Before: Ward JA at [1]
Emmett JA at [226]
Gleeson JA at [229]Decision: 1. Extend time for the filing and service of the appellants’ notice of appeal to 21 August 2014.
2. Dismiss the appeal with costs.Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – duty of care – whether primary judge erred in not finding duty of care contended for on appeal though not pleaded at trial and inconsistent with manner in which appellants’ case was conducted at first instance
TORTS – negligence – breach of duty – whether primary judge erred in finding that there was no breach of duty to carry out inspection complying with relevant Australian Standard and that the respondent had not provided negligent advice to the appellants
CAUSATION – whether primary judge erred in formulating the test for causation of damage in a pure economic loss claim
APPEAL – evidence - challenge to factual findings – adequacy of reasons given for findings – credibility of witnesses – whether error in assessing credibilityLegislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5D, s16
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56-59
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 60
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.9, 51.53Cases Cited: Benton v Scott’s Refrigerated Freightways [2008] NSWCA 143
Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd v Redbno Investments Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 46
Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1
Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; (1982) 148 CLR 658
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Gould and Birbeck and Bacon v Mount Oxide Mines Ltd (in Liq) [1916] HCA 81; (1916) 22 CLR 490
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Limited v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Limited [No 6] [2007] NSWSC 124; (2007) 63 ACSR 1
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Limited v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Limited [2008] NSWCA 206; (2008) 73 NSWLR 653
Keith v Gal [2013] NSWCA 339
London Passenger Transport Board v Moscrop [1942] AC 332
Shanmugaratnam v Strasburger Enterprises (Properties) Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 229
Vines v ASIC [2007] NSWCA 75; (2007) 62 ACSR 1Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cherie Marise Delaney (First appellant)
Kenneth John Cullinan (Second appellant)
Terrence Ralph Winn (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms V Heath (Appellants)
M Pesman SC with Ms A Power (Respondent)
J P Capsanis & Co Lawyers (Appellants)
J S Mueller & Co (Respondent)
File Number(s): CA 2014/00138906 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Date of Decision:
- 10 April 2014
- Before:
- Finnane QC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2012/259470
HEADNOTE
[This Headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
In September 2006, the appellants purchased a home on a steeply sloping block in a bush setting below a nature reserve at…
Continue reading Delaney v Winn
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Delaney v Winn [2015] NSWCA 124
- Case
- [2015] NSWCA 124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in: (a) failing to find a duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellants, particularly in relation to a duty that was not pleaded at trial and was inconsistent with the appellants' case as conducted below; (b) finding no breach of duty by the respondent in failing to carry out an inspection in accordance with an Australian Standard and in providing negligent advice; and (c) formulating the test for causation of damage in a claim for pure economic loss. The appellants also challenged the primary judge's factual findings, the adequacy of the reasons given for those findings, and the assessment of witness credibility.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the primary judge's decision. The Court held that the primary judge was correct in not finding a duty of care that had not been pleaded and was inconsistent with the way the case was run at first instance. Furthermore, the Court found no error in the primary judge's assessment that there was no breach of duty regarding the inspection or the advice provided. The Court also affirmed the primary judge's formulation of the test for causation in pure economic loss claims.
The Court of Appeal ordered that time for the filing and service of the appellants’ notice of appeal be extended to 21 August 2014, but otherwise dismissed the appeal with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Extend time for the filing and service of the appellants’ notice of appeal to 21 August 2014.
2. Dismiss the appeal with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.