WB Jones Staircase & Handrail Pty Ltd v Richardson & Ors

The appeal concerned a plaintiff who suffered injury when a balustrade gave way. The plaintiff brought proceedings in negligence against the builder, Mirvac, and two subcontractors, WB Jones Staircase & Handrail Pty Ltd and JMKG. The central dispute revolved around the scope of the duty of care owed by the builder to the owner, specifically whether it included an obligation to inspect the work of subcontractors and whether the builder should have been aware of relevant building standards. The court also considered the duty owed by the first subcontractor, WB Jones, to whom the installation of the balustrade was entrusted, and whether that duty extended to inspecting the work of a further subcontractor to whom WB Jones had subcontracted the installation. The question of whether WB Jones breached its duty by failing to retain a competent subcontractor was also examined.

The legal issues before the court included the content of the duty of care owed by a builder to an owner, particularly concerning the inspection of subcontractors' work and awareness of building standards. The court was required to determine if the builder breached this duty by failing to inspect. Furthermore, the court had to ascertain the scope of the duty owed by a subcontractor entrusted with an installation, including whether it extended to inspecting the work of a subsequent subcontractor and whether the first subcontractor breached its duty by failing to retain a competent subcontractor. Finally, the court was tasked with apportioning liability among the tortfeasors and assessing whether the non-economic loss awarded to the plaintiff was excessive, considering the requirements of sections 13 and 15 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* regarding past and future economic loss and domestic assistance.

The Court of Appeal found that the builder, Mirvac, owed a duty to inspect the work of its subcontractors and that it had breached this duty. Similarly, WB Jones was found to have breached its duty of care. The court determined that the damages awarded to the plaintiff were not excessive and that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against all three defendants. However, the court varied the apportionment of liability. Mirvac was ordered to contribute 25 percent to the plaintiff's damages and costs, while JMKG was ordered to contribute 50 percent. WB Jones was ordered to contribute 25 percent to Mirvac's liability and 25 percent to JMKG's liability. The appeals by Mirvac and WB Jones were allowed in part, and the appeal by JMKG was dismissed.