Fraser Lyne Constructions Pty Ltd v Waba - [2025] NSWSC 600

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fraser Lyne Constructions Pty Ltd v Waba [2025] NSWSC 600
Date of orders: 18 June 2025
Decision date: 18 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Technology and Construction List
Before: Peden J
Decision:
At [71]

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS — Termination — Whether parties agreed to terminate building contract
CONTRACTS — Remedies — Damages — Proof of loss or damage — Whether plaintiff entitled to loss of bargain damages following defendant’s alleged repudiation — Where plaintiff has failed to adduce precise evidence of quantum of loss of bargain damages

Legislation Cited:
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
DTR Nominees Pty Ltd v Mona Homes Pty Ltd (1978) 138 CLR 423
Long Spring Pty Ltd v RD Beechworth Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 437
Placer (Granny Smith) Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [2003] HCA 10
Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd v Debelak (1989) 89 ALR 275
Troulis v Vamvoukakis [1998] NSWCA 237

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Fraser Lyne Constructions Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Dr Alakirawa Agwana Waba (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
RD Turnbull (Plaintiff)
M Maconachie (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Watson Webb (Plaintiff)
Tony Cox Lawyers & Conveyancers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/436348
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Fraser Lyne Constructions Pty Ltd is a residential building company, which acts through its sole director, Mr Fraser Lyne. It claimed that it accepted Dr Alakirawa Waba’s repudiation of a July 2022 costs plus contract to build his home on river-front land in Sancrox, New South Wales.
Under the contract, Fraser Lyne was entitled to a 20% builder’s margin on the building costs. Fraser Lyne sought loss of bargain damages for that lost builder’s margin, in the sum of about $451,000.
Fraser Lyne must fail for the reasons that follow. Dr Waba is not liable, because the parties agreed to terminate the contract in early 2023, on the basis that Dr Waba paid Fraser Lyne its reasonable expenses for site visits and meetings.
Had it been necessary to decide, I would not have upheld Dr Waba’s alternative submission that Fraser Lyne repudiated the contract by providing a second estimate of costs that was out of all proportion to the original quote. Before closing submissions, Dr Waba also sensibly abandoned a misleading or deceptive conduct claim against Fraser Lyne.
The key issues in dispute were:

Did the parties enter into an agreement to terminate the July 2022 building contract?

If there was no such agreement to terminate, did either party repudiate the building contract and, if so, what was the appropriate remedy?

Chronology of events

By July 2021, Dr Waba had approached architects Collins W Collins to prepare drawings for a residential dwelling on his land.
On 15 October 2021, Dr Waba, Mr Derek Collins and Mr Lyne met on site and discussed the project. I accept that Dr Waba had no building experience and relied on the expertise of Mr Collins and Mr Lyne in drafting appropriate plans and construction matters.
Mr Collins’ drawings went through various versions. On 6 January 2022,…

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 Fraser Lyne Constructions Pty Ltd v Waba

Details

AGLC: Fraser Lyne Constructions Pty Ltd v Waba [2025] NSWSC 600
Case: [2025] NSWSC 600
Decision Date: 18 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fraser Lyne Constructions Pty Ltd versus Waba was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Fraser Lyne Constructions, a company involved in building and construction, brought an action against the defendant, Waba, regarding the termination of a building contract. The dispute arose from a contractual agreement between the parties, which was allegedly repudiated by Waba, prompting Fraser Lyne Constructions to seek loss of bargain damages as a remedy.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the parties had indeed agreed to terminate the building contract and, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim loss of bargain damages. The court needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the plaintiff's claim for damages and whether the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proving the quantum of such damages. The court had to examine the terms of the contract, the circumstances leading to the alleged repudiation, and the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding their losses.

The court found that while the evidence demonstrated that the parties had agreed to terminate the contract, the plaintiff had not provided precise evidence of the quantum of loss of bargain damages. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish the specific amount of loss they suffered due to the termination. As a result, the court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim loss of bargain damages. The court's reasoning hinged on the need for clear and precise evidence to substantiate claims of damages, and in this instance, the plaintiff's evidence was deemed insufficient to meet this standard.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for loss of bargain damages, affirming that the plaintiff had not met the evidentiary burden required to substantiate their claim. The court did not make any orders regarding the termination of the contract itself but focused solely on the issue of damages.

Orders