District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Morris v Leaney [2021] NSWDC 224 Hearing dates: 24-27 August 2020, 8-9 and 12 February 2021; written submissions 17 March 2021 Date of orders: 10 June 2021 Decision date: 10 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Smith SC, DCJ Decision: 1. Judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,000.
2. The plaintiffs file submissions of no more than three pages, if any, in relation to costs within 14 days.
3. The defendant file any submissions of no more than three pages in response within 14 days.
4. Unless the parties consent to the issue of costs being determined without further oral hearing, the matter is to be listed for hearing on costs on a date to be fixed by arrangement with my associate.
Catchwords: TORTS – professional negligence – architect – damages – breach of contract - false and misleading representations – reliance on representations – loss and damage – concurrent wrongdoer
Legislation Cited: Architect’s Regulation 2004, Sch 1 – NSW Architect’s Code of Professional Conduct
Architects Act 2003 (NSW)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Competition & Consumer Act, 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law
Cases Cited: Auburn Municipal Council v ARC Engineering Pty Ltd [1973] 1 NSWLR 513
Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700
Bellgrove v Elridge (1954) 90 CLR 613; [1954] HCA 36
Beregold Pty Ltd v Mitsopoulos (t/a D Mitsopoulos & Associates) (1999) 15 BCL 290
Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592; [2004] HCA 60
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304; [2009] HCA 25
Campomar Sociedad, Limitada v Nike International Ltd (2000) 202 CLR 45; [2000] HCA 12
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232; [1998] HCA 55
Doepel & Associates Architects Pty Ltd v Hodgkinson [2008] WASCA 262
Forrest v Australian Securities and Investment Commission (2012) 247 CLR 486; [2012] HCA 39
Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82
Huppert v Stock Options of Australia Pty Ltd (1965) 112 CLR 414; [1965] HCA 30
Ireland v WG Riverview Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 307
Jewelsnloo Pty Ltd v Sengos [2016] NSWCA 309
Kennedy Street Pty Ltd v The Minister [1963] NSWR 1252
Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd (1938) 61 CLR 286; [1938] HCA 66
McBratney v Boston [1994] ATPR ¶41-355
Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 357; [2010] HCA 31
Motium Pty Ltd v Arrow Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 65
Nadinic v Cheryl Drinkwater as trustee for the Cheryl Drinkwater Trust [2020] NSWCA 2
NAIS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2005) 228 CLR 470; [2005] HCA 77
Norton Property Group Pty Ltd v Ozzy States Pty Ltd (in liq) [2020] NSWCA 23
Continue reading Morris v Leaney
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Morris v Leaney [2021] NSWDC 224
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 224
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the defendant was liable for professional negligence, breach of contract, and false and misleading representations, and if so, the extent of the damages. The court also had to consider the issue of concurrent wrongdoers, as the plaintiffs had engaged another architect to rectify the defects caused by the defendant's alleged negligence. The court had to determine whether the damages claimed by the plaintiffs were solely attributable to the defendant's negligence or whether they were also caused by the actions of the other architect.
The court found that the defendant was liable for professional negligence and breach of contract, but not for false and misleading representations. The court held that the plaintiffs had relied on the defendant's representations and that the defendant had breached his duty of care by failing to ensure that the design and supervision of the construction were of a reasonable standard. The court also found that the plaintiffs had suffered loss and damage as a result of the defendant's negligence. However, the court held that the issue of concurrent wrongdoers meant that the plaintiffs could not recover the full amount of damages claimed. The court awarded the plaintiffs judgment in the sum of $1,000.
The court ordered that the plaintiffs file submissions of no more than three pages in relation to costs within 14 days, and that the defendant file any submissions of no more than three pages in response within 14 days. Unless the parties consented to the issue of costs being determined without further oral hearing, the matter was to be listed for hearing on costs on a date to be fixed by arrangement with the court's associate.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,000.
2. The plaintiffs file submissions of no more than three pages, if any, in relation to costs within 14 days.
3. The defendant file any submissions of no more than three pages in response within 14 days.
4. Unless the parties consent to the issue of costs being determined without further oral hearing, the matter is to be listed for hearing on costs on a date to be fixed by arrangement with my associate.
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.