Honeywood v Munnings

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read
Reported Decision: 67 NSWLR 466

Court of Appeal


CITATION: Honeywood as executrix of the estate of the late Neville Honeywood v Munnings & Anor [2006] NSWCA 215
HEARING DATE(S): 10 March 2006
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
2 August 2006
JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Giles JA at 43; Hislop J at 44
DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed with costs.; (2) Set aside the orders of Master Harrison and in lieu thereof substitute an order allowing the appeal of the executrix to the Supreme Court with costs.; (3) Set aside the orders of the Tribunal of 27 September 2004 dismissing the notice of motion of the executrix of 8 September 2003 with costs and in lieu thereof substitute an order dismissing the application by the proprietors to the Tribunal of 20 September 2001.; (4) Remit the proceedings to the Tribunal with liberty for either the executrix or the proprietors to apply to it, at their own risk as to costs, for an order for the costs of the proceedings in the Tribunal.; (5) The proprietors to have a certificate or certificates under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 with respect to the costs of the appeal in the Common Law Division and the costs of the further appeal to this Court.
CATCHWORDS: RES JUDICATA – merger – building contract – breach by builder – judgment for proprietor on cause of action – second claim against builder – claim barred - STATUTE – construction – Parliament mistakes existing law – existing law not necessarily changed - D
LEGISLATION CITED: Building Services Corporation Legislation Amendment Act 1996
Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001
Home Building Act 1989
CASES CITED: Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758
Conquer v Boot [1928] 2 KB 336
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539
IRC v Dowdall, O’Mahoney & Co Ltd [1952] AC 401
Macquarie Bank Ltd v National Mutual Life Association of Australia Ltd (1996) 40 NSWLR 543
Onerati v Phillips Constructions Pty Ltd (In liq) (1989) 16 NSWLR 730
Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2 AC 1
State Government Insurance Office (Q) v Rees (1979) 144 CLR 549
The Indian Grace [1993] AC 410
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
West Midland Baptist Association v Birmingham Corporation [1970] AC 874
PARTIES: Beverley Anne Honeywood as executrix of the estate of the late Neville Honeywood (Claimant)
Craig Stephen Munnings (First Opponent)
Kylie Gaye Munnings (Second Opponent)
Builders' Insurers Guarantee Corporation (Third Opponent)
Registrar, Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (Fourth Opponent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40554 of 2005
COUNSEL: E Olsson SC (Claimant)
R Glasson (First and Second Opponents)
N/A (Third Opponent)
Submitting appearance (Fourth Opponent)
SOLICITORS: Derham Houston (Claimant)
A C Knibb Kaine & Associates (First and Second Opponents)
Holding Redlich (Third Opponent)
I V Knight Crown Solicitor (Fourth Opponent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30101 of 2004
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Master Harrison
LOWER COURT…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Honeywood v Munnings and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2006] NSWCA 215
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Honeywood v Munnings*, the executrix of a deceased builder appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Supreme Court which had upheld a tribunal's dismissal of her application. The dispute concerned a second claim brought by the executrix against the proprietors for work done under a building contract, following an earlier successful claim by the proprietors against the deceased builder for breach of that same contract.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the proprietors' earlier judgment against the deceased builder for breach of the building contract extinguished, by operation of the doctrine of *res judicata* (specifically, merger of the cause of action), any subsequent claim by the builder's executrix for work done under that contract. The court also considered the principles of statutory construction in relation to Parliament's presumed knowledge of existing law.

The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that the proprietors' earlier judgment for breach of contract did indeed extinguish the cause of action, thereby barring the executrix's subsequent claim. Handley JA, with whom Giles JA and Hislop J agreed, reasoned that once a judgment is obtained on a cause of action, that cause of action merges in the judgment and can no longer be the subject of further proceedings. The court found that the proprietors' claim for damages for breach of contract encompassed the issue of the value of work done, and therefore the executrix's subsequent claim for payment for that work was barred by the doctrine of *res judicata*.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal, allowing the executrix's appeal to the Supreme Court with costs. The orders of the Tribunal dismissing the executrix's notice of motion were also set aside, and in lieu thereof, the proprietors' application to the Tribunal was dismissed with costs. The proceedings were remitted to the Tribunal with liberty for either party to apply for costs. The proprietors were also granted certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 for the costs of the appeal in the Common Law Division and the further appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed with costs.; (2) Set aside the orders of Master Harrison and in lieu thereof substitute an order allowing the appeal of the executrix to the Supreme Court with costs.; (3) Set aside the orders of the Tribunal of 27 September 2004 dismissing the notice of motion of the executrix of 8 September 2003 with costs and in lieu thereof substitute an order dismissing the application by the proprietors to the Tribunal of 20 September 2001.; (4) Remit the proceedings to the Tribunal with liberty for either the executrix or the proprietors to apply to it, at their own risk as to costs, for an order for the costs of the proceedings in the Tribunal.; (5) The proprietors to have a certificate or certificates under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 with respect to the costs of the appeal in the Common Law Division and the costs of the further appeal to this Court.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.