Stubing v Halling

The appeal concerned a dispute arising from the sale of a property by the appellants, the Stubings, to the respondents, Mr Halling and Ms Morgan. The central issue was a breach of warranty under the contract of sale, specifically relating to building work carried out on the land. The Stubings had constructed substantial stone walls on the property, parts of which exceeded one metre in height. This construction required development approval under the Development Act 1993 (SA), which the Stubings had not obtained. The contract for sale included a warranty that, to the vendor's knowledge, no building work had been carried out without necessary consents and approvals, with a schedule stating "NONE KNOWN TO VENDOR" in relation to this clause. Following settlement, significant portions of the walls collapsed due to structural unsoundness. The matter proceeded to the District Court, where a judge found the Stubings had breached the warranty and awarded damages to the purchasers. The Stubings appealed this decision to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the District Court judge erred in finding a breach of the warranty contained in clause 5.6.2 of the contract, whether the assessment of damages, including an award for interest, was correct, and whether the judge's costs orders were appropriate. The appellants sought to overturn the finding of breach, the quantum of damages awarded, and the costs order.

The Full Court, comprising Gray, Sulan, and White JJ, ultimately dismissed the appeal. The court reasoned that the construction of the stone walls, particularly those exceeding one metre in height, constituted "building work" for which development approval was required under the relevant South Australian legislation. The absence of such approval meant that the warranty in clause 5.6.2 had been breached, notwithstanding the qualification in the schedule that no such issues were "known to vendor," as the court found the lack of approval was a factual matter rather than a matter of knowledge. The court found no error in the judge's assessment of damages, which included an award for interest, nor in the discretionary costs order made in favour of the purchasers.