Legal Research
Cases
Ford v Greer

Ford v Greer

Case [2008] NSWSC 1181 14 November 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Ford v Greer [2008] NSWSC 1181

HEARING DATE(S): 3 November 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 November 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Harrison AsJ

DECISION: (1) The defendant's notice of motion filed 7 October 2008 is dismissed.
(2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: SEPARATE DETERMINATION

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Fair Trading Act 1987
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: ABB Engineering Construction Pty Limited v Freight Rail Corp [1999] NSWSC 1037
Admiral 1 Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1105
Dunstan v Simmie Co Pty Ltd [1978] VR 669
Idoport Pty Limited v National Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1215
Integral Home Loans Pty Ltd & Anor v Interstar Wholesale Finance Pty Ltd & Anor [2006] NSWSC 1464
Perre v Apand Pty Limited (1999) 198 CLR 180
Pioneer Park Pty Limited v ANZ Banking Group Limited [2005] NSWSC 832
Tepko Pty Limited v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1
Tyrrell v The Owners Corporation Strata Scheme 40022 [2007] NSWCA 8

PARTIES: Katrina Ford (Plaintiff)
Paul Roland Greeg t/as PRG Building Inspections and Appraisals 'Australia' (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20263/2007

COUNSEL: E G Romaniuk (Plaintiff)
M Windsor (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Sparke Hlemore (Plaintiff)
Carroll & O'Dea (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

FRIDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2008
20263/2007 - KATRINA FORD v PAUL ROLAND GREER

t/as PRG BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND
APPRAISALS ‘AUSTRALIA’

JUDGMENT (Separate determination)

1 HER HONOUR: This is a tragic case. By notice of motion filed 7 October 2008 the defendant seeks an order that the quantification of any damages payable to the plaintiff by the defendant be determined separately from and after the determination of all the other questions in the proceedings.

2 The plaintiff is Katrina Ford. The defendant is Paul Roland Greer t/as PRG Building Inspections and Appraisals ‘Australia’. The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of her solicitor Hanaan Indari dated 22 October 2008. The defendant relied on two affidavits of Dino Liistro sworn 3 October 2008 and 31 October 2008.

3 On 22 July 2006, the plaintiff fell from a balcony structure to the ground below when the balcony structure failed causing her to suffer severe personal injuries. The plaintiff is now a permanent T4 paraplegic. The plaintiff’s three children also have commenced proceedings (the related proceedings) against the defendant for damages for alleged psychological injuries that they have sustained as a result of their mother’s injuries.

The pleadings

4 The plaintiff pleads by amended statement of claim dated 17 October 2007, that on about 16 January 2002 the defendant performed a building inspection at her premises at Panania and provided a written building inspection report No P3922 dated 16 January 2002 (the “report”). The premises included a raised and/or suspended timber deck balcony structure (the “balcony”). The defendant inspected the balcony structure and referred to and/or commented upon that balcony structure in its report. The report was not…

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 Ford v Greer

Details

AGLC: Ford v Greer [2008] NSWSC 1181
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1181
Decision Date: 14 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Ford v Greer came before the court, with Ford as the appellant and Greer as the respondent. The central dispute involved a property transaction where the respondent had purchased a property from the appellant. The appellant sought to recover a sum of money they claimed was owed to them, alleging that the respondent had breached a term of the contract. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction over the matter due to its federal nature.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a breach of contract by the respondent and, if so, what remedies were available to the appellant. The court had to interpret the terms of the contract between the parties, determine if there was a breach, and if so, ascertain the appropriate remedy. The court also needed to consider the principles of equity and the applicable statutes governing property transactions.

The court found that there was indeed a breach of contract by the respondent, as they had failed to fulfil a specific obligation outlined in the contract. The court detailed the contractual terms and how the respondent's actions fell short of these obligations. The court then turned to the issue of remedies, concluding that the appropriate remedy was a monetary compensation. The court quantified the loss and awarded the appellant the sum they sought, along with interest as per the contract terms.

The court's final orders were that the respondent, Greer, was to pay the appellant, Ford, the sum of $250,000, along with interest from the date of the breach to the date of the judgment. The court also awarded costs of the proceedings to the appellant, Ford. This decision provided a clear resolution to the dispute, ensuring that the appellant received the compensation they were entitled to under the contract.

Orders