Gail Savage v Rabea Hatem Fairs
Case
•
[2018] ACTMC 17
•24 August 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Gail SAVAGE v Rabea Hatem Fairs [2018] ACTMC 17
[2018] ACTMC 17
24 August 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Gail Savage v Rabea Hatem Fairs, the plaintiff, Gail Savage, brought proceedings against the defendant, Rabea Hatem Fairs, for breach of statutory guarantees, negligence, and breach of an oral contract. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute centred around a renovation project undertaken by the defendant, who was a carpenter, on the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to complete the work to an acceptable standard and breached statutory guarantees under the Home Building Act 1975 (Qld).
The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the defendant had breached the statutory guarantees by failing to perform the work with due care and skill, and whether the work was of an acceptable standard. Secondly, the court had to assess whether the defendant was negligent in the execution of the renovation. Thirdly, the court needed to decide if there was a valid oral contract between the parties, and if so, whether the defendant breached that contract. Finally, if any breaches were found, the court had to determine the appropriate quantum of damages.
The court found that the defendant had indeed breached the statutory guarantees under the Home Building Act. The work performed by the defendant did not meet the acceptable standard of work, and the plaintiff had to bear the cost of demolition and reconstruction of the defective work. The court also held that the defendant was negligent in their duties. Regarding the oral contract, the court found that there was a valid contract between the parties, and the defendant had breached it by failing to complete the work as agreed. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, taking into account the cost of rectifying the work and the diminution in value of the property. The final orders of the court were made in paragraphs [67] and [68] of the judgment.
The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the defendant had breached the statutory guarantees by failing to perform the work with due care and skill, and whether the work was of an acceptable standard. Secondly, the court had to assess whether the defendant was negligent in the execution of the renovation. Thirdly, the court needed to decide if there was a valid oral contract between the parties, and if so, whether the defendant breached that contract. Finally, if any breaches were found, the court had to determine the appropriate quantum of damages.
The court found that the defendant had indeed breached the statutory guarantees under the Home Building Act. The work performed by the defendant did not meet the acceptable standard of work, and the plaintiff had to bear the cost of demolition and reconstruction of the defective work. The court also held that the defendant was negligent in their duties. Regarding the oral contract, the court found that there was a valid contract between the parties, and the defendant had breached it by failing to complete the work as agreed. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, taking into account the cost of rectifying the work and the diminution in value of the property. The final orders of the court were made in paragraphs [67] and [68] of the judgment.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Consumer Law
-
Contract Law
-
Tort Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Breach of Statutory Duty
-
Causation
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Negligence
-
Rescission
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Khan v Filardo Ercan Archtects Pty Ltd (Civil Dispute) [2023] ACAT 35
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Khan v Filardo Ercan Archtects Pty Ltd (Civil Dispute)
[2023] ACAT 35
Faris v Savage (No 3)
[2021] ACTSC 60
Faris v Savage (No 2)
[2020] ACTSC 219
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
4
Adapt Constructions Pty Ltd v Whittaker and Luff
[2015] ACTSC 188
Bellgrove v Eldridge
[1954] HCA 36
Bellgrove v Eldridge
[1954] HCA 36