Ridge v BGC Construction Pty Ltd

Case [2007] WADC 117

RIDGE -v- BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD [2007] WADC 117



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2007] WADC 117
Case No:CIV:2179/200521, 22 & 25 JUNE 2007
Coram:GOETZE DCJ6/07/07
PERTH
21Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $183,885.21
PDF Version
Parties:PETER CARLTON RICHARD RIDGE
BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD (ACN 008 783 248)

Catchwords:
Damages
Contract to build domestic home
Repudiation of contract by builder
Consumer requiring to seek alternative builder against background of increasing building prices
Approach to assessment of damages

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Herbert Broderick, [2000] BLR 282
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Bevan Investments Ltd v Blackhall & Struthers (No 2) [1978] 2 NZLR 97
Burns v M A N Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 653
Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City Council [1980] 1 All ER 928
Glenmont Investments v O'Loughlin (No 2) (2000) 79 SASR 185
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
McKay & Anor v Hudson & Ors [2001] WASCA 387
Radford v De Froberville [1978] 1 All ER 33
Woodward Pty Ltd v Kelleher, unreported; NSWCA; BC8902118; 30 May 1989

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : RIDGE -v- BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD [2007] WADC 117 CORAM : GOETZE DCJ HEARD : 21, 22 & 25 JUNE 2007 DELIVERED : 6 JULY 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 2179 of 2005 BETWEEN : PETER CARLTON RICHARD RIDGE
    Plaintiff

    AND

    BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD (ACN 008 783 248)
    Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages - Contract to build domestic home - Repudiation of contract by builder - Consumer requiring to seek alternative builder against background of increasing building prices - Approach to assessment of damages

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $183,885.21



(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr I A Morison
    Defendant : Mr J R B Ley

Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : Solomon Bros
    Defendant : Hotchin Hanly


Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Herbert Broderick, [2000] BLR 282
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
Bevan Investments Ltd v Blackhall & Struthers (No 2) [1978] 2 NZLR 97
Burns v M A N Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 653
Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City Council [1980] 1 All ER 928
Glenmont Investments v O'Loughlin (No 2) (2000) 79 SASR 185
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
McKay & Anor v Hudson & Ors [2001] WASCA 387
Radford v De Froberville [1978] 1 All ER 33
Woodward Pty Ltd v Kelleher, unreported; NSWCA; BC8902118; 30 May 1989

(Page 3)
    GOETZE DCJ:


Introduction

1 Between February 2004 and June 2005, the plaintiff negotiated with the defendant to construct a house on the plaintiff's vacant lot adjacent to a canal at Halls Head, Mandurah.

2 The plaintiff intended that following the completion of construction by the defendant and…

Continue reading Ridge v BGC Construction Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ridge v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] WADC 117
Case
[2007] WADC 117
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ridge v BGC Construction Pty Ltd arose out of a contract for the construction of a domestic home. The dispute centred around the builder's repudiation of the contract, necessitating the consumer to engage another builder amidst a backdrop of rising construction costs. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought damages for the difference in cost between the original contract price and the amount paid to the replacement builder, along with additional costs incurred due to the repudiation.

The court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages for the plaintiff's loss. Specifically, the legal issue was whether the damages should be assessed based on the difference in cost between the original and replacement builders, or if there were other factors that should be considered in determining the quantum of damages. The court also needed to consider whether the increasing building prices due to market conditions should impact the assessment of damages.

The court held that the appropriate measure of damages was the difference in cost between the original and replacement builders. The court noted that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate their loss by engaging another builder to complete the project. The court rejected the argument that increasing building prices should be a factor in assessing damages, as this would effectively allow the builder to benefit from market fluctuations. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to damages in the amount of $183,885.21, which represented the difference in cost between the two builders. This amount was deemed a reasonable and just compensation for the loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the builder's repudiation of the contract.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $183,885.21

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.