Gardem v Etheridge Shire Council (No.2)

In *Gardem v Etheridge Shire Council (No.2)*, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered a dispute between Mr. Gardem and the Etheridge Shire Council concerning the Council's alleged breach of contract and duty of care. The proceedings arose from a prior judgment where the Court had found the Council liable for negligence in its management of a road construction project. This subsequent hearing focused on the assessment of damages and the determination of whether the Council had breached its contractual obligations in relation to the same project.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Council had breached its contractual obligations to Mr. Gardem, and if so, what damages were recoverable for those breaches. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Council's actions, which had already been found negligent, also constituted a breach of the express or implied terms of the contract governing the road construction. The assessment of damages required consideration of the principles of remoteness and causation in both contract and tort.

Judge Jarrett found that the Council had indeed breached its contractual obligations. The Court reasoned that the Council's failure to properly manage the road construction project, as established in the earlier negligence finding, also amounted to a breach of its contractual duty to perform the work with due care and skill. The Court applied the principles of contractual damages, including the rule in *Hadley v Baxendale*, to assess the losses flowing from these breaches. The damages awarded were intended to put Mr. Gardem in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed without breach.