Pisano v Dandris

The case of Pisano v Dandris involved the plaintiffs, the Pisano family, who purchased a residential property from the defendants, Mr and Mrs Dandris. The dispute centred around the quality and condition of the property, which the Pisanos claimed was defective and not reasonably fit for occupation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues revolved around whether the defendants breached statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) by not performing work in a proper and workmanlike manner and using unsuitable materials. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the defendants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law by making misrepresentations about the residence's qualities. The case also explored the scope of any duty of care owed by the defendants to the plaintiffs to avoid pure economic loss due to the property's defects.

The court first addressed the statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), determining that the property was not reasonably fit for occupation due to significant defects. The court held that the defendants breached the statutory warranties by not performing the work properly and using unsuitable materials. Regarding the Australian Consumer Law, the court found that the defendants' conduct, despite disclaimers and opportunities for inspection, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. The court concluded that the disclaimers and inspection opportunities did not break the chain of causation between the conduct and the plaintiffs' damages. The court also found that the defendants' husband owed a duty of care to avoid pure economic loss by ensuring the work was not defectively done, and this duty was breached, leading to the plaintiffs' economic loss.

The court awarded the plaintiffs damages for the breach of statutory warranties, the misleading or deceptive conduct, and the pure economic loss caused by the defendants' negligence. The precise quantification of damages was left to be determined in a subsequent hearing, but the court provided a detailed analysis of the factors to be considered in assessing the amount. The final orders included an injunction preventing the defendants from using the property for residential purposes until it met the required standards, and a declaration that the defendants breached their statutory warranties and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court also ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' legal costs.