Ryan v Cheqrouni (No 2) - [2024] ACTSC 230

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Ryan v Cheqrouni (No 2)
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 230
Hearing Date:	15 July 2024
Decision Date:	18 July 2024
Before:	Elkaim AJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of $237,876.09. (2) The defendant is to pay the disbursements incurred by the plaintiffs in bringing and pursuing the proceedings.
Catchwords:	CONTRACTS – DAMAGES – Implied terms – term of standard of work – claim for rectification and destroyed goods – claim for personal injury (mental distress) arising from breach of contract – whether damages for distress recoverable – assessment of losses caused by breach of contract – replacement value based on new or used value – pragmatic approach to assessment
Legislation Cited:	Building Act 2004 (ACT) s 88
Cases Cited:	Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 Fink v Fink (1946) 74 CLR 127 McCrohin v Harith [2010] NSWCA 67 Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516
Texts Cited:	Nicholas C Seddon and Rick A Bigwood, Cheshire and Fifoot Law of Contract, (LexisNexis, 12^th ed, 2023)
Parties:	Mark Ryan ( First Plaintiff) Mary Southorn ( Second Plaintiff) Mostafa Cheqrouni t/as A and Z Floor Sanding and Cleaning ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented ( First Plaintiff) Self-represented ( Second Plaintiff) No appearance ( Defendant)
Solicitors Self-represented ( First Plaintiff) Self-represented ( Second Plaintiff) No appearance (Defendant)
File Number:	SC 365 of 2023

ELKAIM AJ:

The plaintiffs have sued the defendant for damages arising from breach of contract. The most recent pleading is a fourth amended statement of claim filed on 15 April 2024. The defendant has never taken any part in the proceedings, but I am satisfied has been served with all relevant documents and material and had been made aware of the hearing date. The defendant did not appear at the hearing.
The plaintiffs were self-represented. They did not wish to make any submissions on the law. It would not be an understatement to summarise their approach to any legal issues as: “we have no idea”.

Background

The evidence before the court was mostly contained in affidavits of the plaintiffs. In addition, there is a medical report from a Mr Sutton (Exhibit D) and an expert report from a Mr Martin (Exhibit E). The first plaintiff gave oral evidence that the allegations of fact in the above pleading are correct. The underlying ‘story’ is also contained in his affidavit sworn on 9 November 2020 (included in Exhibit A).

The plaintiffs were in a de facto relationship. In 2014 they owned a number of properties between them including a residence in the ACT suburb of Griffiths (the first premises). The first plaintiff was the registered owner of the first premises.
The contents of the first premises were regarded by both plaintiffs as their joint assets.
The floorcoverings included carpet and cork tiles.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ryan v Cheqrouni (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Cheqrouni (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 230
Case: [2024] ACTSC 230
Decision Date: 18 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Ryan, brought an action against the defendant, Cheqrouni, seeking damages for breach of contract, rectification, and destruction of goods, as well as personal injury arising from the breach. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to deliver goods of the required quality and standard, leading to significant financial loss and mental distress. The court was required to determine whether damages for mental distress were recoverable in this context, the appropriate measure of damages for the destroyed goods, and the assessment of the losses caused by the breach of contract.

The court considered the terms implied by law into the contract, particularly focusing on the standard of work and quality of goods to be delivered. It held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for the breach of contract, including the replacement value of the destroyed goods and compensation for mental distress. The court adopted a pragmatic approach in assessing the replacement value, finding that it should be based on the value of new goods rather than used goods. The court found that the defendant's breach caused significant financial loss and mental distress to the plaintiffs, justifying the award of damages.

The court awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to pay $237,876.09 in damages, along with the costs of the proceedings. The court's decision provided clarity on the recoverable damages for mental distress in breach of contract cases and the appropriate method for assessing losses in such disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of $237,876.09.

(2) The defendant is to pay the disbursements incurred by the plaintiffs in bringing and pursuing the proceedings.

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.