Morris v Leaney

In *Morris v Leaney*, the appellants, who engaged the respondent architect for home renovations, sued the respondent for professional negligence. The dispute arose from the significant cost overruns of the renovations, which ultimately cost $780,000, far exceeding the appellants' revised budget of $600,000. The appellants alleged that the respondent made false and misleading representations about the cost of the renovations and breached contractual and tortious duties to advise them accurately on the likely expenditure.

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.