Vagg v Routledge

The plaintiffs, Vagg, sought damages from the defendants, Routledge, for alleged breaches of statutory warranties under section 18B of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). The dispute centred on whether the defendants had failed to construct the plaintiffs’ home to the standard of workmanship and quality of materials required by the Act. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues were whether the 2014 amendments to section 18E of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) should apply retroactively, and if the expert evidence provided by the plaintiffs was compliant with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Additionally, the court had to consider the plaintiffs’ delay in repairing defects, and whether damages for solatium were available.

The court held that the 2014 amendments to section 18E did not apply retroactively, and therefore the original version of the Act governed the case. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ expert evidence did not comply with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), and therefore it was not admissible. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs’ delay in repairing defects was a mitigating factor in assessing damages. Finally, the court held that damages for solatium were not available in this case.

The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs $200,000 in damages for the breaches of statutory warranties, reduced by 25% due to the plaintiffs’ delay in repairing defects. The plaintiffs’ claim for solatium was dismissed.