Schrader v Broach

The appeal concerned a dispute between Schrader and Broach regarding a contract for residential renovation works. The applicants, Schrader, sought to appeal a decision of the primary judge. The central issue was whether the respondent, Broach, had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, or unconscionable conduct, in relation to a cost-plus contract for renovations.

The court was required to determine whether the price estimate provided for the renovation works was misleading or deceptive, particularly in light of clear warnings within the standard form contract. Further, the court had to consider whether the respondent's conduct in invoicing and providing spreadsheets, rather than budget reports, constituted unconscionable conduct. The applicants also sought to prove a loss, with the primary judge finding that the price paid under the contract was less than the value of the building works completed.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge's assessment of the evidence, noting the fallibility of memory over time and the applicants' strong views suggesting an entrenched factual position. The court held that the clear warnings in the contract negated any misleading or deceptive conduct regarding the price estimate. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent's invoicing practices did not prevent the applicants from querying costs, and therefore did not amount to unconscionable conduct.

The Court granted leave to rely upon an amended notice of appeal, but subsequently dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal and the amended notice of appeal as incompetent. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.