SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Dunn v Hanson Australasia Pty Ltd |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 169 |
Hearing Dates: | 29 and 30 May 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 12 July 2017 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [75] |
Catchwords: | CONTRACTS – BUILDING CONTRACTS – Breach – breach of statutory warranties – breach of express written terms – breach of contractual warranty – failure to rectify defects – quantum of damages TRADE PRACTICES – MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT – Representations – quantum of damages – ancillary liability for damages – proportionate liability DAMAGES – CONTRIBUTION AND APPORTIONMENT – Proportionate liability – “building action” – “apportionable claim” – “concurrent wrongdoer” |
Legislation Cited: | Building Act 2004 (ACT), ss 88, 140, 141, Part 9 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2003 (ACT), ss 107A, 107F(3)(b) |
Cases Cited: | Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Ellis’s Town House Pty Ltd v Botan Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 20 Hadgelias Holdings and Waight v Seirlis & Ors [2014] QCA 177 Helkeast Pty Ltd v Ruckschloss [2017] ACTSC 65 Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominess Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 10; 247 CLR 613 Radford v De Froberville [1977] 1 WLR 1262 Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 18; 255 CLR 661 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8; 236 CLR 272 The Owners Units Plan 1917 v Koundouris [2016] ACTSC 96 |
Texts Cited: | Explanatory Statement for the Building Bill 2003 (ACT) J L R Davis, Inquiry Into the Law of Joint and Several Liability: Report of Stage Two (Commonwealth of Australia, 1995) |
Parties: | Kathryn Anne-Marie Dunn (First Plaintiff) Thurston Benjamin Dunn (Second Plaintiff) Hanson Australasia Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Henry Lau (Second Defendant) Qun Cai (Third Defendant) Raymond Guy Howard (Fourth Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr M Hassell (First and Second Plaintiffs) Mr P Johannessen (First and Second Defendants) No appearance (Third and Fourth Defendants) |
| Solicitors Backhouse Legal (First and Second Plaintiffs) Johannessen Legal & Migration (First and Second Defendants) No appearance (Third and Fourth Defendants) | |
File Number: | SC 164 of 2015 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
This is an action to recover damages arising from the defective construction of a residential building in Macgregor, a suburb of Canberra.
The plaintiffs are the owners of the property. They purchased the property from the third defendant Ms Qun Cai. In July 2009 the third defendant had entered into a contract with the first defendant (Hanson Australasia Pty Ltd) for the first defendant to build a two-storey four-bedroom house on the land. The second defendant is and was the sole director of the first defendant. In April 2010, prior to completion of the construction of the house, the third defendant entered into a contract to sell the house and land to the plaintiffs. Construction of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dunn v Hanson Australasia Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 169
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues in this case revolved around the identification and quantification of damages for the breaches of contract and statutory warranties. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted misleading or deceptive conduct and, if so, the extent of the damages for such conduct. Another key issue was the calculation of damages, including whether the damages were to be apportioned between multiple parties and the application of the "building action" and "apportionable claim" principles.
The court held that the defendant had indeed breached the contract and statutory warranties by failing to rectify the defects in the building. It was found that the breaches also amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct. In assessing the quantum of damages, the court applied principles of proportionate liability and contribution. It concluded that the damages should be apportioned among the parties involved, taking into account their respective roles and responsibilities. The court awarded damages to Mr Dunn, reflecting the diminution in value of the building due to the defects and the costs associated with rectifying them.
The court ordered that the defendant, Hanson Australasia Pty Ltd, pay the plaintiff, Mr Dunn, a sum of money representing the damages for the breaches of contract, statutory warranties, and misleading and deceptive conduct. The court also directed that the damages be apportioned among the parties according to their respective contributions to the breaches.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [75]
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.