Rickard Constructions Pty Ltd v Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Ltd

The case of Rickard Constructions Pty Ltd v Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Ltd involves a dispute between the parties over the assignment of a cause of action for damages for breach of contract, as well as for misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of duty of care. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff, Rickard Constructions, could validly assign its cause of action for damages to the defendant, Rickard Hails Moretti, and if the plaintiff had a sufficient interest to justify the assignment. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff had suffered a loss by the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct, and if the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to avoid economic loss.

The court considered the distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims, referencing the case of Poulton v Commonwealth and Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse. It examined the nature of the claims and the circumstances surrounding the assignment. The court held that the cause of action for damages for breach of contract was assignable, as it was an unliquidated claim. The court also found that the cause of action for misleading and deceptive conduct was assignable, as the plaintiff suffered a loss "by" the conduct. However, the claim for damages for breach of duty of care was not assignable as the plaintiff did not have a sufficient interest to justify the assignment. The court further held that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to avoid economic loss, and this duty was breached, resulting in damages being suffered by the plaintiff.

Based on the findings, the court ruled that the assignment of the cause of action for damages for breach of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct was valid. However, the assignment of the claim for damages for breach of duty of care was invalid due to the lack of sufficient interest. The court also found that the plaintiff had suffered a loss "by" the misleading or deceptive conduct. The final orders of the court are not provided in the text, but it is likely that the court ordered the defendant to pay damages for the breach of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct, while dismissing the claim for damages for breach of duty of care.