Roluke Pty Ltd v Lamaro Consultants Pty Ltd

Roluke Pty Ltd (the owner) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the primary judge concerning damages awarded against Lamaro Consultants Pty Ltd (the engineer) for negligent design of a waterproof concrete slab. The dispute centred on the measure of damages for breach of contract, specifically whether the contract required a slab that would remain waterproof for the life of the building or one that incorporated a membrane necessitating periodic repairs. The owner also challenged the primary judge's findings of fact regarding the expected lifespan of the membrane and the necessary repairs to the slabs, and whether the owner was entitled to damages for the diminution in the building's value despite the satisfactory completion of repairs.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine the correct measure of damages for the engineer's breach of contract. This involved interpreting the contractual obligations regarding the waterproof slab, specifically its expected durability and maintenance requirements. Furthermore, the court had to assess the correctness of the primary judge's factual findings concerning the life expectancy of the membrane and the extent of repairs required. A key legal issue was whether the owner could claim damages for the diminution in the building's value even after the defective elements had been repaired to a satisfactory standard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. While the precise reasoning is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome indicates that the court disagreed with the primary judge on some aspects of the damages assessment. The court directed the parties to file agreed short minutes of order within 14 days to give effect to its judgment, including provisions for the costs of the appeal and the trial. If agreement could not be reached, the appellants were to serve and file their proposed orders and submissions, with the respondents having a further opportunity to respond. The court also noted the possibility of the respondents seeking leave to appeal the primary judge's costs orders.