Kannis Holdings Pty Ltd v Castelli WA Pty Ltd - [2003] WADC 249

KANNIS HOLDINGS PTY LTD -v- CASTELLI WA PTY LTD [2003] WADC 249

Last Update: 18/11/2003

KANNIS HOLDINGS PTY LTD -v- CASTELLI WA PTY LTD [2003] WADC 249
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 249
Case No:	CIV:56/2003	Heard:	28 JULY & 15 OCTOBER 2003
Coram:	DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT	Delivered:	17/11/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Damages assessed at $170,762.94
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	KANNIS HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 008 685 112) CASTELLI WA PTY LTD (ACN 090 432 938)
Catchwords:	Assessment of damages Building Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669 Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447 Hay (or Bourhill) v Young [1943] AC 92 Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wilh Wilhensem Agency Pty Ltd [2001] NWSCA 313

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : KANNIS HOLDINGS PTY LTD -v- CASTELLI WA PTY LTD [2003] WADC 249 CORAM : DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT HEARD : 28 JULY & 15 OCTOBER 2003 DELIVERED : 17 NOVEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 56 of 2003 BETWEEN : KANNIS HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 008 685 112)

Plaintiff

AND

CASTELLI WA PTY LTD (ACN 090 432 938)

Defendant

Catchwords:

Assessment of damages - Building - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Damages assessed at $170,762.94

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr R D Shaw

Defendant : Mr D M McKenna

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Phillips Fox

Defendant : Jarman McKenna

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Dulieu v White & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669
Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 QB 447
Hay (or Bourhill) v Young [1943] AC 92
Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wilh Wilhensem Agency Pty Ltd [2001] NWSCA 313

(Page 3)

1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT: The writ in this matter was issuedon the 13 January 2003 seeking damages for harm alleged to have been sustained to a building on land of which the plaintiff was a registered proprietor caused by construction works which were undertaken on the lot adjoining that building.

2 The defendant appeared to the action but did not file a defence to the plaintiff's statement of claim, as a consequence of which a default judgment for damages to be assessed was entered on 14 April 2003. It is that assessment with which I am required to deal.

3 The matter proceeded before me on two separate days and the bulk of the evidence was given by way of affidavit and the deponents of certain of the affidavits, which had been filed, were called for the purpose of cross-examination.

4 There are a number of different aspects to the assessment and I shall deal with each in turn. The first issue with which I must deal is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Kannis Holdings Pty Ltd v Castelli WA Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Kannis Holdings Pty Ltd v Castelli WA Pty Ltd [2003] WADC 249
Case: [2003] WADC 249
Decision Date: 17 NOVEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a dispute between Kannis Holdings Pty Ltd and Castelli WA Pty Ltd, regarding the assessment of damages related to a building project. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate amount of damages owed by Castelli to Kannis for the defects and delays in the construction of the building.

The court was required to consider various factors in assessing the damages, including the extent of the defects, the costs associated with rectifying those defects, and the impact of the delays on Kannis' business operations. The court also needed to examine the contractual terms and any relevant legislation governing building contracts in Western Australia.

In its judgment, the court meticulously analysed the evidence presented by both parties, including expert reports and testimonies from construction professionals. The court found that Castelli had breached the contract by failing to complete the building to the agreed specifications and within the agreed timeframe. After carefully considering all the evidence, the court determined that the appropriate amount of damages owed by Castelli to Kannis was $170,762.94. This amount reflected the costs of rectifying the defects and the loss of profits suffered by Kannis due to the delays. The court provided detailed reasons for its assessment, ensuring that the award was fair and based on the specific facts of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Damages assessed at $170,762.94

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.