Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd atf Jesmond Unit Trust v DSD Builders Pty Ltd (in liq)

The case involves Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of the Jesmond Unit Trust, and DSD Builders Pty Ltd (in liquidation). The dispute centres on claims of malicious damage to property and trespass, with the plaintiff asserting that the defendant caused significant damage to the property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the plaintiff had the exclusive possession of the property to bring an action for trespass, if the plaintiff was entitled to recover loss for damage to the reversion, and the appropriate measure of damages for such damage. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the second defendant was responsible for the malicious damage and whether they had breached their statutory duty of care under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW).

The court examined the plaintiff's standing to bring the action for trespass, considering whether they had exclusive possession of the property. It found that the plaintiff had the necessary standing, as they had exclusive possession at the time of the incident. The court then addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover loss for damage to the reversion, which was a novel issue in this context. The court concluded that the plaintiff could recover such damages, as the damage to the reversion impaired their right to possess and enjoy the property. In determining the measure of damages for the reversion, the court found that the appropriate measure was the diminution in the value of the reversion at the time of the damage. The court also examined whether the second defendant caused the malicious damage and found that they were indeed responsible. Furthermore, the court ruled that the second defendant had carried out construction work for the purposes of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) and had acted in breach of their statutory duty of care under that Act in relation to that construction work.

The final orders of the court were that the second defendant was liable for the malicious damage caused to the property and was responsible for paying damages to the plaintiff for the diminution in the value of the reversion. The court also found that the second defendant had breached their statutory duty of care under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) in relation to the construction work. The exact amount of damages and any potential penalties for the breach of statutory duty were to be determined in subsequent proceedings.