VULIN and BAMBOOZLE (WA) PTY LTD T/AS BAMBOOZLE

In the case of Vulin and Bamboozle (WA) Pty Ltd trading as Bamboozle, the plaintiff sought damages for alleged breaches of contract and negligence by the defendant in relation to the installation of bamboo flooring. The dispute centred on the damage to the bamboo flooring which the plaintiff claimed was caused by moisture seeping into the concrete slab, leading to the plaintiff incurring significant costs for repairs and replacement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court was tasked with determining whether the moisture in the concrete slab, which led to the damage of the bamboo flooring, was due to capillary action, and whether the defendant's installation process was negligent. A critical issue was whether the moisture level in the concrete slab was within acceptable limits and whether the defendant's installation process contributed to the damage. The court also had to decide whether the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage was caused by the defendant's actions.

The court found that the moisture level in the concrete slab was within acceptable limits and that the damage to the bamboo flooring was not due to capillary action. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's installation process was negligent and that the damage was caused by the defendant's actions. The court emphasised that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish causation, and that the damage was more likely due to other factors, such as external weather conditions. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding, which included the costs of the expert reports and the legal costs associated with the trial. The court's decision was based on the finding that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proving the defendant's liability, and that the plaintiff's claim was not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court's ruling effectively resolved the dispute in favour of the defendant, protecting the defendant from liability for the damage to the bamboo flooring.