Kirkby v Coote

Kirkby v Coote involved a dispute between the appellants, who designed a pole house for the respondents, and the respondents, who were the owners of the house. The house was built on steeply sloping land and some of its footings subsided and failed following heavy rain. The respondents sued the appellants for damages for negligence. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in assessing damages on the basis of the reasonable cost of demolition and reconstruction of the house. The appellants did not challenge the finding of negligence but contested the assessment of damages.

The court considered the legal principles governing the measure of damages for negligence. It noted that the trial judge had assessed damages based on the reasonable cost of demolition and reconstruction, which was the appropriate measure of damages for damage to land and buildings. The court also examined the adequacy of the footings and whether the risk of failure of the remaining footings was foreseeable. The court found that the trial judge's assessment of damages was not erroneous, as the risk of failure of the remaining footings was foreseeable and the cost of demolition and reconstruction was a reasonable measure of damages.

The court held that the trial judge had not erred in assessing damages on the basis of the reasonable cost of demolition and reconstruction of the house. The court found that the risk of failure of the remaining footings was foreseeable and that the cost of demolition and reconstruction was a reasonable measure of damages. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

1 Kirkby v Coote [2022] WASCA 38 at [11] per King J.
2 Ibid at [11].