Winrobe Pty Ltd v Sundin's Building Co Pty Ltd [No 2]
Case
•
[1992] NSWCA 278
•24 December 1992
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Winrobe Pty Ltd v Sundin's Building Co Pty Ltd [No 2] [1992] NSWCA 278
[1992] NSWCA 278
24 December 1992
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Winrobe Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) brought proceedings against Sundin's Building Co Pty Ltd (the defendant) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for breach of contract and negligence arising from the defendant's construction of a building.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the relevant limitation legislation. This involved determining the date from which the limitation period commenced to run, specifically in relation to the discovery of latent defects in the building.
The Court of Appeal held that the limitation period began to run from the date of the breach of duty, not from the date of the discovery of the damage. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Court found that the wording of the relevant limitation statute did not permit an extension of time based on the plaintiff's ignorance of the defect. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was found to be out of time.
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal, setting aside the orders of the primary judge and ordering that the plaintiff's summons be dismissed.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the relevant limitation legislation. This involved determining the date from which the limitation period commenced to run, specifically in relation to the discovery of latent defects in the building.
The Court of Appeal held that the limitation period began to run from the date of the breach of duty, not from the date of the discovery of the damage. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Court found that the wording of the relevant limitation statute did not permit an extension of time based on the plaintiff's ignorance of the defect. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was found to be out of time.
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal, setting aside the orders of the primary judge and ordering that the plaintiff's summons be dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Damages
-
Breach
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Rowindon Pty Ltd v Ward & Anor trading as Robbo's Spare Parts [2007] NSWADT 66
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Johnson v Mackinnon (No 2)
[2022] NSWCA 22
Poulos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (No 3)
[2020] NSWCA 72
Mr Whippy Pty Ltd v Oceanwalk Pty Ltd
[2008] NSWCA 8
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0