District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Peter Richardson v Mirvac Constructions Pty Limited [2012] NSWDC 204 Decision date: 11 July 2012 Before: Cogswell SC DCJ Decision: Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants in the sum of $750,000.
Catchwords: Negligence - project home balustrade gave way - personal injury - severe back injury requiring surgery, ongoing disability - parties: project home builder, staircase manufacturer, balustrade installer - responsibility for negligence of independent contractor - nature of duties owed by each defendant - question of inspection of work of subcontractors - balustrade affixed with gun driven nails - limitation of action - claim in contract against first defendant statute barred - limitation period for the cause of action against third defendant extended - damages - construction of s 50C and 50D of the Limitation Act 1969 - apportionment of responsibility and damages. Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002, s5D and s5E.
Limitation Act 1969, s14, s50A, s50C, s50D, s50E, s60D and s60E.Cases Cited: Argyropoulos v Layton [2002] NSWCA 183
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery [2007] HCA 6; (2007) 230 CLR 22
New South Wales v Gillett [2012] NSWCA 83.Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter Richardson (Plaintiff)
Mirvac Constructions Pty Limited (First defendant)
WB Jones Staircase and Handrail Pty Limited (Second defendant)
JMKG Pty Limited (Third defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Mr MG Gilbert (Plaintiff)
Mr J Catsanos (First defendant)
Mr RA Cavanagh SC (Second defendant)
Mr PJ Gow (Third defendant)
Solicitors:
Mr BA Pierce (Plaintiff)
Mr A Oag (First defendant)
File Number(s): DC 2009/337542
Judgment
Introduction
Peter Richardson arranged for Mirvac, the project home builder, to build a house for him and his family at Penrith. That was in 1998. Mr Richardson and his family moved in and were living there when in 2006 an accident happened which this case is about. A balustrade on the first floor gave way under Mr Richardson's foot and he fell to the floor injuring his back. Mr Richardson sued Mirvac for damages resulting from his injury.
It turned out that Mirvac had contracted with a staircase manufacturer and installer called WB Jones so they were joined to the proceedings as well. But it further emerged that although WB Jones had manufactured the balustrade they had contracted with another company, JMKG, to install the balustrade. Mr Richardson made various claims against the three defendants including that each was negligent.
I have to decide whether Mr Richardson has made out his claims against any or all of the defendants. There are various cross-claims amongst the defendants so if Mr Richardson is successful I will have to decide not only which defendants are liable but to what extent.
Issues and Parties
All parties were represented by competent counsel, senior counsel in WB Jones' case, which has helped me significantly in my job of making these decisions. They agreed on a list of issues to be determined by me. That became MFI 27 and I will give my reasons by reference to that…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Peter Richardson v Mirvac Constructions Pty Limited and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] NSWDC 204
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the balustrade was affixed with gun-driven nails, which was not in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and the installer failed to inspect the work properly. The builder was also found to be vicariously liable for the negligence of the installer. The court also considered the construction of sections 50C and 50D of the Limitation Act 1969, which extended the limitation period for the cause of action against the second defendant.
The court awarded damages to the plaintiff in the sum of $750,000 against all defendants. The court found that the builder was 50% responsible, the manufacturer 30% responsible, and the installer 20% responsible for the negligence that caused the plaintiff's injury. The court apportioned the damages accordingly. The court held that the builder had a duty to inspect the work of the installer and ensure that it was done in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
In conclusion, the court found that the defendants were negligent in their respective duties, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for his injury. The court awarded the plaintiff $750,000 in damages, apportioned between the defendants according to their degree of responsibility. The court also held that the builder was vicariously liable for the negligence of the installer, and the limitation period for the cause of action against the manufacturer was extended under the Limitation Act 1969.
Orders
Orders of the court
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants in the sum of $750,000.
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.