JANDON CONSTRUCTIONS (A FIRM) & ORS -v- LYONS & ANOR [1999] WASCA 310
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 310 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:119/1998 | 14 APRIL 1999 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J WHITE J WHEELER J | 22/12/99 | |
| 33 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JANDON CONSTRUCTIONS (A FIRM) CIVILSTRUCT PTY LTD Trading As ANDREOTTA CARDENOSA CONSULTING ENGINEERS ALBERT ANDREOTTA HENRY MICHAEL LYONS PAMELA FRANCES LYONS |
Catchwords: | Torts Negligence Defective building work Damages Appropriate measure of Doubtful remedy Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Blay v Pollard [1930] 1 KB 628 Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 Tyson v Brisbane Market Freight Brokers Pty Ltd (1994) 68 ALJR 304 Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Carosella v Ginos and Gilbert Pty Ltd (1981) 27 SASR 515 De Cesare v Deluxe Motors Pty Ltd (1996) 67 SASR 28 Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) (1976) 9 ALR 437 Lever Brothers Ltd v Bell [1931] 1 KB 557 Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190 Mummery v Irvings Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 99 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344 Water Board v Moustakas (1988) 180 CLR 491 White v Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1974] 1 Ch 269 Wilson v Piesley (1975) 7 ALR 517 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : JANDON CONSTRUCTIONS (A FIRM) & ORS -v- LYONS & ANOR [1999] WASCA 310 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- WHITE J
WHEELER J
- FUL 121 of 1998
- First Appellant (First Defendant)
CIVILSTRUCT PTY LTD Trading As ANDREOTTA CARDENOSA CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Second Appellant (Second Defendant)
ALBERT ANDREOTTA
Third Appellant (Third Defendant)
AND
HENRY MICHAEL LYONS
First Respondent (First Plaintiff)
PAMELA FRANCES LYONS
Second Respondent (Second Plaintiff)
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Torts - Negligence - Defective building work - Damages - Appropriate measure of - Doubtful remedy - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
First Appellant (First Defendant) : Mr P A Monaco
Second Appellant (Second Defendant) : Mr S Penglis
Third Appellant (Third Defendant) : Mr S Penglis
First Respondent (First Plaintiff) : Mr T Lampropoulos
Second Respondent (Second Plaintiff) : Mr T Lampropoulos
Solicitors:
First Appellant (First Defendant) : Godfrey Virtue & Co
Second Appellant (Second Defendant) : Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Third Appellant (Third Defendant) : Freehill Hollingdale & Page
First Respondent (First Plaintiff) : Gibson & Gibson
Second Respondent (Second Plaintiff) : Gibson & Gibson
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Blay v Pollard [1930] 1 KB 628
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
Tyson v Brisbane Market Freight Brokers Pty Ltd (1994) 68 ALJR 304
Case(s) also cited:
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Carosella v Ginos and Gilbert Pty Ltd (1981) 27 SASR 515
(Page 3)
De…
Continue reading Jandon Constructions (a firm) v Lyons
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Jandon Constructions (a firm) v Lyons [1999] WASCA 310
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 310
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved Jandon Constructions, the respondent, and Lyons, the appellant. The dispute centred around the extent of damages payable for defective building work that caused damage to Lyons' property. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Lyons had brought an action against Jandon Constructions, alleging negligence in the performance of building work that led to significant damage to his property. The trial judge had awarded Lyons substantial damages, which Jandon Constructions sought to have reduced on appeal.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the appropriate measure of damages for the defective building work. Jandon Constructions argued that the damages awarded were excessive and that the measure of damages was not appropriate given the doubtful remedy for the damage caused. They contended that the court should have considered the cost of repair rather than the diminution in value of the property. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of damages for defective building work and whether the award was commensurate with the harm suffered.
The court held that the trial judge had not erred in assessing the appropriate measure of damages. It was noted that the damages awarded were not disproportionate to the harm caused by the defective building work. The court emphasised that the measure of damages for defective building work should reflect the diminution in value of the property rather than the cost of repair. The court found that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and had not overlooked any material aspect of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the original award of damages stood.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the appropriate measure of damages for the defective building work. Jandon Constructions argued that the damages awarded were excessive and that the measure of damages was not appropriate given the doubtful remedy for the damage caused. They contended that the court should have considered the cost of repair rather than the diminution in value of the property. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of damages for defective building work and whether the award was commensurate with the harm suffered.
The court held that the trial judge had not erred in assessing the appropriate measure of damages. It was noted that the damages awarded were not disproportionate to the harm caused by the defective building work. The court emphasised that the measure of damages for defective building work should reflect the diminution in value of the property rather than the cost of repair. The court found that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and had not overlooked any material aspect of the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the original award of damages stood.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.