Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Morris v Leaney [2022] NSWCA 95 Hearing dates: 18 March 2022 Date of orders: 17 June 2022 Decision date: 17 June 2022 Before: Payne JA at [1]
White JA at [2]
Beech-Jones JA at [3]Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) The Appellants pay the Respondent’s costs of the Appeal.
Catchwords: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – architect – respondent was engaged as architect for appellant’s home renovations – appellants indicated initial budget of $300,000 which was later revised to $600,000 – respondent provided “opinion on probable cost” of $590,000 excluding GST and other items in April 2015 for preliminary design – further additions to design thereafter – appellants engaged builder who commenced work on cost plus basis in December 2015 – falling out between parties and appellants continued with builder – by June 2016 substantial increase in costs and some aspects of design not pursued – renovations cost $780,000 but only increased value of house by $330,000 – appellants sued for false and misleading representation about cost of renovations and breach of contractual and tortious duty to advise about cost – appellants claimed damages on a no transaction basis namely that if known that cost would have exceeded $600,000 would not have undertaken renovations – trial judge rejected appellants evidence of express representations about cost of renovations – trial judge upheld contract and tort claim but only awarded nominal damages – whether trial judge’s approach to damages was erroneous – whether trial judge’s findings warranted finding that respondent obliged to advise appellants that renovations could not be undertaken for $600,000 – whether appellants would not have undertaken renovations if they had been so advised – held – trial judge’s approach to damages erroneous – however not able to conclude that had respondent not breached his contractual and tortious duties then appellants would not have undertaken renovations – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Cappello v Hammond & Simonds NSW Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 57
Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd v Hodgkinson [2008] WASCA 262
Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 3
Hilton v Legal Profession Admission Board [2017] NSWCA 232
Leeda Projects Pty Ltd v Zeng (2020) 61 VR 384; [2020] VSCA 192
Martinez as trustee for Martinez HWL Practice Trust as representative of the partners trading as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers v Griffiths as trustee for the Griffiths HWL Practice Trust [2019] NSWCA 310
McBratney v Boston [1994] ATPR 41-355
Morris v Leaney [2021] NSWDC 224
Robinson v Kenny [2014] FCA 988
Voli v Inglewood Shire Council (1963) 110 CLR 74; [1963] HCA 15
Wyzenbeek v Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in liq) (2019) 272 FCR 373; [2019] FCAFC 167
Texts Cited: Walmsley, Abadee, Zipser and Sirtes, Professional Liability in Australia (3rd ed, 2016, Law Book Company)
Continue reading Morris v Leaney
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Morris v Leaney [2022] NSWCA 95
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 95
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in their approach to assessing damages, and whether the trial judge's findings supported a conclusion that the respondent was obliged to advise the appellants that the renovations could not be completed within their $600,000 budget. A further question was whether the appellants would have forgone the renovations had they received such advice.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's approach to damages was erroneous. However, despite finding a breach of the respondent's contractual and tortious duties, the Court was unable to conclude that the appellants would not have undertaken the renovations had they been properly advised. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) The Appellants pay the Respondent’s costs of the Appeal.
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.