McKAY & ANOR -v- HUDSON & ORS [2001] WASCA 387
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 387 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:71/2001 | 5 NOVEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | WALLWORK J MURRAY J OLSSON AUJ | 5/12/01 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed in part | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RODERICK DOUGLAS McKAY KATHLEEN GLENYS McKAY JOHN FRANCIS HUDSON MARGARET ROSE HUDSON COLIN EDWIN BAILEY SUSAN LYSLE BAILEY |
Catchwords: | Damages Approach to assessment Breach of contractual obligations Contract for site development for sale of caravans Deterioration of site post development Instability of structure Defective construction Appropriate remedial works Motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence rejected |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Alucraft Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Grocon Ltd (The Flinders Street Contract) [1996] 2 VR 386 Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Greater Wollongong City Council v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 Jacob and Youngs v Kent (1921) 129 NE 889 Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd [1993] 3 All ER 705 University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481 Urban Transport Authority of NSW v Nweiser (1992) 28 NSWLR 471 Wilson v Peisley (1975) 30 ALJR 207 Brockway v Pando (2000) 22 WAR 405 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade (1991) 178 CLR 134 Hansen v Gloucester Developments Pty Ltd (1992) 1 Qd R 14 Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539 Jandon Constructions (a firm) v Lyons [1999] WASCA 310 Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632 Ruxley Electronics and Constructions Ltd v Forsyth [1995] 3 WLR 118 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : McKAY & ANOR -v- HUDSON & ORS [2001] WASCA 387 CORAM : WALLWORK J
- MURRAY J
OLSSON AUJ
- KATHLEEN GLENYS McKAY
Appellants
AND
JOHN FRANCIS HUDSON
MARGARET ROSE HUDSON
COLIN EDWIN BAILEY
SUSAN LYSLE BAILEY
Respondents
Catchwords:
Damages - Approach to assessment - Breach of contractual obligations - Contract for site development for sale of caravans - Deterioration of site post development - Instability of structure - Defective construction - Appropriate remedial works - Motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence rejected
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal allowed in part
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellants : Mr G A Rabe
Respondents : Mr B P Wheatley
Solicitors:
Appellants : Goldfinch & Co
Respondents : Murfett & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Alucraft Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Grocon Ltd (The Flinders Street Contract) [1996] 2 VR 386
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Greater Wollongong City Council v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
Jacob and Youngs v Kent (1921) 129…
Continue reading McKAY v Hudson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- McKAY v Hudson [2001] WASCA 387
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 387
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
McKAY v Hudson was a case where the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for breach of contractual obligations in relation to a site development intended for the sale of caravans. The plaintiff claimed that the site deteriorated post-development, resulting in instability of the structure and defective construction. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had not fulfilled contractual obligations, leading to significant damage, and sought compensation for the required remedial works.
The central legal issues in the case were the appropriate approach to assessing damages in light of the deterioration of the site and the quality of the construction work. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's failure to maintain the site according to the contractual obligations resulted in a substantial decline in the property's value and necessitated costly remedial works. The defendant contended that the damages claimed were excessive and not directly attributable to the breach of contract.
The court found that while the defendant had indeed breached the contract, the evidence presented was insufficient to determine the exact extent of the damages claimed. The court noted that the plaintiff had failed to provide a detailed and reliable estimate of the costs associated with the remedial works. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiff's motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence, finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the additional evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the quantum of damages awarded to the plaintiff.
The central legal issues in the case were the appropriate approach to assessing damages in light of the deterioration of the site and the quality of the construction work. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's failure to maintain the site according to the contractual obligations resulted in a substantial decline in the property's value and necessitated costly remedial works. The defendant contended that the damages claimed were excessive and not directly attributable to the breach of contract.
The court found that while the defendant had indeed breached the contract, the evidence presented was insufficient to determine the exact extent of the damages claimed. The court noted that the plaintiff had failed to provide a detailed and reliable estimate of the costs associated with the remedial works. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiff's motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence, finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the additional evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the quantum of damages awarded to the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed in part
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.