Legal Research
Cases
Page v Built Vision

Page v Built Vision

Case [2013] SADC 48 26 April 2013

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
PAGE & ANOR v BUILT VISION & ANOR
[2013] SADC 48
Judgment of His Honour Judge Costello
26 April 2013
PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The plaintiffs applied to amend their Claim to file a Sixth Statement of Claim - the defendants opposed the application - Claim sought damages in relation to a contract whereby the defendants agreed to prepare plans and supervise works in renovating and extending the plaintiffs' residence - in addition to sundry objections to particular proposed amendments the defendants complained that the proposed Statement of Claim sought to claim damages for remedial works unlikely to be undertaken due to sale of the residence and a claim for damages for negligence for pure economic loss in the absence of a plea of vulnerability on the part of the plaintiffs. Held: Application to amend allowed.
Building Work Contractors Act 1995 (SA), referred to.
State of South Australia v Peat Marwick Mitchell [1997] SASC 6129; Harris Scarfe Ltd (in liq) v Ernst & Young (2005) 239 LSJS 126; Pavlovic v Commonwealth Bank (1992) 56 SASR 587; Woodhead Aust (SA) Pty Ltd v Paspalis Group of Companies (1991) 103 FLR 122; Sinclair v James [1894] 3 Ch 554; Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1982) 2 NSWLR 937; Northern Aboriginal Legal Aid Service v Bradley (2000) 136 NTR 1; MacDonnell Shire Council v Miller [2009] NTSC 46; Dresna Pty Ltd v Misu Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1537; Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394; Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256; John Fairfax Publications v Hitchcock [2007] NSWCA 364; (2007) 70 NSWLR 484; Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613; Wenham v Ella (1972) 127 CLR 454; Director of War Service Homes v Harris (1968) Qd R 275; De Cesare v Deluxe Motors Pty Ltd (1997) 67 SASR 28; Scott Carver Pty Ltd v SAS Trustee Corporation [2005] NSWCA 462; Westpoint Management Ltd v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd (2007) NSWCA 253; Cordon Investments Pty Ltd v Lesdor Properties Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 184; Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180; Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515; Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609; Abrook v Paterson (1995) SASC 4990; Holcon Aust Pty Ltd v Town of Walkerville & Anor (2007) SASC 437; Upper Hunter District Council v Australian Chilling and Freezing Co Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 429; BP (Refinery (Westernport)) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 190 CLR 266; Pavey Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221; Nunkuwarrin Yunti v AL Seeley Constructions Pty Ltd (1998) 72 SASR 21; David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353, considered.

PAGE & ANOR v BUILT VISION & ANOR
[2013]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Page v Built Vision

Details

AGLC: Page v Built Vision [2013] SADC 48
Case: [2013] SADC 48
Decision Date: 26 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in Page v Built Vision sought leave to amend their claim, specifically to file a Sixth Statement of Claim. This application was opposed by the defendants, who raised objections regarding the proposed changes. The plaintiffs sought damages related to a contract for renovation and extension works on their residence. The defendants contested the amendment on several grounds, including objections to specific proposed changes and concerns that the new Statement of Claim sought damages for remedial works unlikely to be undertaken due to the sale of the residence. Additionally, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs' claim for damages for negligence for pure economic loss was inappropriate in the absence of a plea of vulnerability.

The court considered the defendants' objections and assessed the plaintiffs' application to amend their claim. It scrutinised whether the proposed amendments were justified and whether they aligned with the court's procedural rules. The court also evaluated the merits of the defendants' concerns about the nature of the claims being pursued. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs' application to amend their claim was permissible. The court held that the proposed amendments were reasonable and did not unfairly prejudice the defendants. The court further determined that the claims for damages, including those for remedial works and for negligence, could proceed as proposed in the Sixth Statement of Claim.

The court's decision allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their amended claim. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of allowing amendments to claims where they are reasonably necessary and do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party. The court's decision also clarified the scope of the claims that could be pursued by the plaintiffs, including those for damages related to remedial works and negligence, without requiring a plea of vulnerability. The final outcome was that the plaintiffs' application to amend their claim was successful, paving the way for the continuation of the proceedings with the updated Statement of Claim.

Orders