J-Corp Pty Ltd v Gilmour

Case [2005] WASCA 136

J-CORP PTY LTD -v- GILMOUR [2005] WASCA 136



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASCA 136
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:FUL:60/200313 MAY 2005
Coram:STEYTLER P
WHEELER JA
MCLURE JA		27/07/05
16Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
Cross-appeal allowed
B
PDF Version
Parties:J-CORP PTY LTD
ROSS STEWART GILMOUR

Catchwords:
Contract
Defective building work
Damages
Appropriate measure
Whether cost of demolition and reinstatement reasonable
Turns on own facts

Legislation:
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52

Case References:
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
De Cesare v Deluxe Motors Pty Ltd (1996) 67 SASR 28
Jandon Constructions v Lyons [1999] WASCA 310
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 345
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
Magistro v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 920048; 20 February 1992

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : J-CORP PTY LTD -v- GILMOUR [2005] WASCA 136 CORAM : STEYTLER P
    WHEELER JA
    MCLURE JA
HEARD : 13 MAY 2005 DELIVERED : 27 JULY 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 60 of 2003 BETWEEN : J-CORP PTY LTD
    Appellant

    AND

    ROSS STEWART GILMOUR
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MACKNAY DCJ

Citation : J-CORP PTY LTD -v- GILMOUR [2003] WADC 2

File No : APP 137 of 2000





Catchwords:

Contract - Defective building work - Damages - Appropriate measure - Whether cost of demolition and reinstatement reasonable - Turns on own facts



(Page 2)

Legislation:

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52




Result:

Appeal dismissed


Cross-appeal allowed


Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr M D Cuerden
    Respondent : Mr S R Sirett


Solicitors:

    Appellant : Hotchkin Hanly
    Respondent : Wojtowicz Kelly



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
De Cesare v Deluxe Motors Pty Ltd (1996) 67 SASR 28
Jandon Constructions (A Firm) v Lyons [1999] WASCA 310
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531

Case(s) also cited:



Magistro v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 920048; 20 February 1992


(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER P: I agree with the judgment of McLure JA and with her conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed, the cross-appeal allowed and that the appellant should pay to the respondent the sum of $66,727.

2 WHEELER JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for decision of McLure JA. I agree with those reasons and have nothing to add.

3 MCLURE JA: The appellant, a builder, constructed a house for the respondent on his land at Chidlow pursuant to a building contract dated 11 April 1996. The appellant sued the respondent in the Local Court for the final progress payment under the building contract and the respondent…

Continue reading J-Corp Pty Ltd v Gilmour

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
J-Corp Pty Ltd v Gilmour [2005] WASCA 136
Case
[2005] WASCA 136
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of J-Corp Pty Ltd versus Gilmour was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. J-Corp, a property developer, contracted with Gilmour, a builder, to construct a residential property. Upon completion, J-Corp identified significant defects in the building work, leading to a dispute over the cost of rectification and the appropriate measure of damages. The primary issue was whether the cost of demolishing the defective parts of the building and reinstating them was a reasonable measure of damages.

The court was required to determine the principles guiding the assessment of damages for defective building work. Specifically, it needed to ascertain whether the cost of demolition and reinstatement was an appropriate measure in this case, considering the unique circumstances and facts presented. The court examined whether the cost was reasonable and necessary, taking into account the nature of the defects, the scope of the work required, and the overall impact on the property's value.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the cost of demolishing the defective parts of the building and reinstating them was indeed reasonable in this case. The court emphasised that the assessment of damages for defective building work must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant factors. The court held that the cost of demolition and reinstatement was a reasonable measure of damages, given the extent of the defects and the need to restore the property to its intended condition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was allowed, affirming the lower court's decision on the appropriate measure of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Cross-appeal allowed

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.