Farthing v Wagg and Hackett; Wagg and Hackett v Farthing

The dispute between the homeowners and the builder, which was adjudicated in the Supreme Court of Victoria, revolved around issues of breach of contract and defective workmanship. The homeowners, Farthing, claimed that the builder, Wagg and Hackett, had failed to complete the construction works to the agreed standard and had not rectified the defects as promised. Conversely, the builder alleged that the homeowners had breached the contract by failing to make payments as per the terms of the agreement. The court was tasked with determining the liability of both parties and the extent of any damages owed.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the builder had breached the contract by failing to complete the works to the agreed standard and whether the homeowners were liable for any payment defaults. The court also had to decide on the costs associated with rectifying the defective work and the appropriate allocation of costs between the parties. The court needed to interpret the terms of the contract and assess whether either party had breached the agreement or acted in a manner inconsistent with the terms.

The court found that the builder had indeed breached the contract by failing to complete the works to the agreed standard and by not rectifying the identified defects. The court determined that the homeowners were also liable for a portion of the payment default, but less than the builder claimed. The court ordered the homeowners to pay the builder the difference in the amounts owed, and also directed the builder to pay the homeowners for the costs of rectifying the defective work. The court provided detailed instructions for the submission and response of costs between the parties, outlining the timeline and limitations for each step.

The court's orders were precise and directed both parties to take specific actions within defined timeframes. The homeowners were ordered to pay the builder a net amount of $40,023.01, reflecting the balance of the owed amounts after accounting for the costs of rectification. The builder was required to submit and serve its cost submissions within 21 days of the order, with the homeowners responding within a further 21 days. Any reply submissions by the builder were limited to two pages and had to be filed within 7 days of receipt of the homeowners' submissions. This detailed and structured approach ensured clarity and compliance in the execution of the court's directives.