Lands & Lands v Skyher P/L & Ors No. DCCIV-98-1124

[2000] SADC 120

LANDS and LANDS v SKYHER PTY LTD and ORS

[2000] SADC 120

Judge Lowrie

Civil

1. A summons was issued by the plaintiffs to recover damages for allegedly defective building work carried out by the first and second defendants. The matter proceeded on this day. I was advised that the plaintiffs were not proceeding with the claim as against the third and fourth defendants.

2. The defendants filed a defence denying the relevant allegations.

3. The plaintiffs appeared in person. The first and second defendants, by letter dated 11 September 2000, wrote to this court advising that they would not be taking any action in regard to the defence, and, in effect, maintained the same.

4. The female plaintiff gave evidence. Mrs Lands tendered to me a written statement in which she confirmed her evidence of the background details concerning the building contractual work undertaken by the defendant, Skyher Pty Ltd, and all the relevant work was attended to by its working director and shareholder, the second defendant. Mrs Lands also tendered all relevant documents in support of the nature of the contract and other relevant materials.

5. The defective building work was clearly apparent from her evidence and clearly supports the allegations in the statement of claim.

6. Two experts were called. Firstly, Mr Bastick, a consulting engineer, who had prepared a detailed report which was tendered showing the inadequacies of building work, and, secondly, Mr Banger, a quantity surveyor, who prepared a very detailed report as to the costs of rectification work. This report contained a breakdown of what Mr Banger believed was the responsibility of the first and second defendants and the other remaining defendants. It was on this basis the matter was resolved as against the third and fourth defendants.

7. The plaintiffs now seek to recover against the first and second defendants. Mr Banger’s assessment was attributable to the negligent work of Skyher Pty Ltd and its principal, the second defendant.

8. Both Mr Bastick and Mr Banger confirmed the negligent manner of the building work.

9. I accept the plaintiffs’ pleadings that the building work of the first and second defendants was defective and in the manner as pleaded.

10. I now assess the damages as follows:

The cost of rectification work which I now fix at the sum, which was originally stated to be $32,416.18. As Mr Banger explained since that time there have been cost increases and he now was of the view that the sum which is now recoverable should be	$40,416.18
Rectifying the aesthetic defects of the house as pleaded	15,000.00
The plaintiffs will be obliged to move out for a period of two months and I fix for alternative rental, the sum of	2,000.00
Removal and re-storing of furniture	480.00
There has been a claim made for the enjoyment and inconvenience and the distress which has been caused to the plaintiffs in this unfortunate building saga. There should be an allowance under this head and I fix	2,000.00
Costs of experts reports	6,707.00
TOTAL	$66,603.18

1. Accordingly I enter judgment for the sum of $66,603.18 against the first and second defendants. I make an order that the plaintiffs receive their costs of action which will be taxed by a Master.