Date post: | 24-Nov-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | asdfajsdkflasjdfklas |
View: | 64 times |
Download: | 7 times |
Michael Filippich - 1 - 1-12-09
SEARCHING FOR CRACKS IN THE BELLGROVE v ELDRIDGE PRINCIPLE
By Michael Filippich
I INTRODUCTION
In Australia, the High Court decision in Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
remains the leading authority for the award of damages at common law for defective or
incomplete work.1 Over the years the application of the Bellgrove v Eldridge2 principle
has extended beyond the conventional realm of defective building cases and into disputes
related to contractor negligence and repair covenants in building leases. A number of
important legal arguments have also been raised regarding considerations of
reasonableness, the intention to rectify, betterment discounts and loss of amenity as an
alternative to rectification costs. This article reviews the cases that have reinforced the
Bellgrove v Eldgride3 principle within the Australian legal system and investigates what
points of law if any have the potential to prevent a plaintiff from claiming rectification
costs for defective work.
I THE BELLGROVE v ELDRIDGE PRINCIPLE
The ruling principle in assessing damages at common law for breach of contract is
the often cited statement made by Parke B in Robinson v Harman (1848) I Ex 850 that:
where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation with respect to damages as if the contract had been performed.
1 Thomas B, The assessment of damages for breach of contract for defective building work (2004) 20 BCL 230. 2 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 3 Ibid.
Michael Filippich - 2 - 1-12-09
This statement highlights the fact that the purpose of damages in contract cases is to
compensate the plaintiff for the other partys non performance, not to punish the
defendant. In order for damages to be awarded for breach of contract a loss needs to be
established otherwise the plaintiff can only recover nominal damages. The measure of
damages for this loss is prima facie the cost of rectifying the breach such that the work
conforms to the contract.4 In some situations the only way to achieve contractual
conformity is to demolish the defective works and start again. An assessment of damages
based on demolition and reconstruction will often result in a large sum being awarded to
the plaintiff. Alternatively the loss may also be assessed as the diminution of value
between the works contracted for and that which was actually delivered. This typically
results in a damages award to the plaintiff that is significantly less than the cost of
rectification.
Both methods of assessing damages were considered by the High Court of
Australia in the case of Bellgrove v Eldridge.5 This case dealt with the construction of a
house where the builder had failed to comply with the concrete specification resulting in
a grave instability in the building foundations. The trial judge at first instance found
that this departure from the specification was so substantial:
that the only remedy which will place the plaintiff in substantially the position in which she would be if the contract were carried out, is to award her such damages as will enable her to have this building demolished and a new building erected in accordance with the contract and specification.6
The trial judge therefore awarded damages to the owner on this basis.
4 Cremean DJ, Shnookal BA and Whitten MH, Brooking on building contracts: the law and practice relating to building and engineering agreements (4th ed, 2004). 5 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 6 Ibid 613.
Michael Filippich - 3 - 1-12-09
The builder appealed this decision claiming that damages should be assessed by
reference to the diminution in value between the building as its stands and the value it
would have had if it had been erected in accordance with the plans and specifications.
This amount would have been significantly less than the cost of demolition and
reinstatement. The High Court upheld the trial judges decision stating that:
the measure of damages recoverable by the building owner for a breach in a building contract is the difference between the contract price of the work or building contracted for and the cost of making the work or building conform to the contract, with the addition, in most cases, of the amount of profits or earnings lost by the breach.7
The court went on to say that this rule is subject to the qualification that not only must
the work undertaken be necessary to produce conformity, but that also it must be a
reasonable course to adopt.8 In the case of Belgrove v Eldridge9 it was considered that
the demolition and reinstatement of the building was both necessary and reasonable as
alternative methods of repair such as underpinning or replacing foundations in a
piecemeal fashion were at best doubtful remedies.
II SUBSEQUENT DEFECTIVE WORKS CASES
The defective works cases that have followed Bellgrove v Eldgridge10 have
demonstrated the courts willingness to assess damages on the basis of demolition and re-
construction in situations where this is necessary to achieve conformity with the contract
and is a reasonable course to adopt. In the case of J-Corp Ltd v Gilmour (2005) WASCA
136 the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal awarded demolition and
reconstruction costs to rectify defective footings which didnt comply with the Building
7 Ibid 615. 8 Ibid 615. 9 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 10 (1954) 90 CLR 613.
Michael Filippich - 4 - 1-12-09
Code of Australia. In reaching this decision the court considered the significance of the
defects, the practicality of repair, the reasonableness of demolition and reconstruction, the
impact of the defects on the cost of the property and the level of conformity with
contractual obligations. On the balance of facts the court concluded that reinstatement
damages would put the plaintiff in the position it would have been in if the contract had
been performed whereas an award for diminution in value would not.
A similar decision was reached by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Kirkby &
Anor v Coote & Ors (2006) QCA 61. This case dealt with the defective design of
building foundations and is an example of how the Bellgrove v Eldgridge11 principle has
also been applied to claims in negligence. In 1993 the Kirkby family engaged Titmus to
design the footings for their retirement home which was to be built on a steep ridge of
land overlooking a forest. Upon awarding the contract the Kirkbys provided Titmus
with a geotech report for the site that included recommendations for how the foundations
should be designed. Titmus elected not to follow the recommendations and instead
proposed a design that he considered to be more economical. This design was certified
by Titmus and his employer as complying with the principles of structural engineering
and soil mechanics as well as the requirements of the original geotech report. During the
construction phase Titmus also issued an inspection certificate asserting that the
foundations had been installed in accordance with his design.
Following a large rainfall event, the foundations designed by Titmus subsided
approximately 90 mm resulting in significant damage to the Kirkbys home. Although
Titmus argued that the failure of the foundations was due to faulty workmanship by the
11 (1954) 90 CLR 613.
Michael Filippich - 5 - 1-12-09
builder, expert evidence presented at trial confirmed that the design itself was
fundamentally flawed. The fact that Titmus had issued a certificate certifying that the
foundations have been installed in accordance with the design also supported the
plaintiffs claim of negligence.
In assessing damages the court followed the Belgrove v Eldridge12 principle and
concluded that the cost of demolition and reconstruction was both necessary and
reasonable in order to achieve conformity with the contract. The defendants claim that
the damages should be based on the cost of underpinning the foundations was rejected as
none of the expert witnesses were willing to guarantee that this would prevent the
foundations from subsiding further.
The recent case of Roluke Pty Ltd & Anor v Lamaro Consultants Pty Ltd & Anor
(2008) NSWCA 323 also demonstrates how the Belgrove v Eldridge13 principle can be
used to calculate damages for defective work due to a negligent design. Roluke Pty Ltd
engaged Lamaro Consultants to provide structural engineering advice for a three storey
car park. Upon reviewing the design, Lamaro changed the architects specification for
the waterproof slab on the roof of the building. The slab was subsequently built in
accordance with Lamaros revised specification and was found to be defective when
water ingress occurred resulting in damage to cars and property. Expert evidence
revealed that Lamaros design for the slab did not comply with Australian Standards and
that the roof would require periodic repairs over the life of the building. The court of
appeal awarded damages sufficient to cover past rectification costs and subsequent
repairs over the twenty year design life of the slab. 12 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 13 (1954) 90 CLR 613.
Michael Filippich - 6 - 1-12-09
III TABCORP HOLDING LTD v BOWEN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
Another case that has reaffirmed the Bellgrove v Eldridge14 principle is the recent
High Court Decision in Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) HCA
8 (Tabcorp). This case was the first time that Bellgrove v Eldgridge15 has been applied
directly to a breach of covenant in a building lease. The facts of the case were as
follows. Tabcorp entered into a ten year lease with Bowen Investments for an office
building in Melbourne. The building had a high quality foyer constructed from materials
such as San Francisco Green Granite, Canberra York Grey Granite and Sequence Mated
Crown Cut American Cherry. The foyer refurbishment had been completed less than six
months before Tabcorp took up occupancy and was highly valued by the building owner.
Shortly after commencing their lease Tabcorp began to demolish the existing
foyer with the intention of replacing it with one that was more to their liking. Tabcorp
failed to notify the owner of their intention to carry out the renovations. This was a clear
violation of their lease which specifically forbid them from altering the premises without
prior written approval from the landlord. The landlord only became aware of the
demolition works when she attended Tabcorps offices to discuss the renovation plans.
By this stage it was too late to seek a court injunction to prevent Tabcorp from carrying
out the work so construction of the new foyer was allowed to proceed. The landlord
subsequently filed a claim for $1.38 million dollars in the Federal Court of Australia to
cover the cost of reinstating the original foyer and the loss of rental income while the
restoration work took place.
14 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 15 (1954) 90 CLR 613.
Michael Filippich - 7 - 1-12-09
At first instance the trial judge held that it was inappropriate to award damages
based on the cost of reinstatement and instead awarded damages of $34,820 which
reflected the diminution in value between the old foyer and new foyer. This amount was
largely determined by the reduction in lettable area of the new foyer compared with the
old and did not take into account the value placed upon the appearance of the original
foyer by the owner. In reaching this decision the trial judge relied on expert evidence
that the tenants changes to the foyer would result in very little diminution in value when
the lease came to an end. His Honor also cited the English case of Joyner v Weeks (1891)
2QB 31 which dealt with a repair covenant in a building lease and established the
common law rule that a landlord is entitled to recover the cost of repairs including loss of
rental income if an action for damages is brought at or near the termination of the lease.
In the case of Tabcorp the trial judge noted that the tenants lease did not end until 2012
or 2017 meaning the claim for reinstatement costs was premature.
On appeal, the Full Federal Court reversed this judgment and awarded the cost of
reinstatement on the basis that Joyner v Weeks16 could be applied because Tabcorp and
Bowen Investments specifically contracted that the renewal of the building lease in 2006
shouldnt affect the court proceedings relating to the foyer. It should be noted that
Victoria is one of the jurisdictions where Joyner v Weeks17 hasnt been overridden by
legislation. In New South Wales and Queensland the maximum sum of damages
recoverable for a breach of repair covenant from a lessee cannot exceed the diminution in
value.18
16 (1891) 2QB 31. 17 (1891) 2QB 31. 18 Graeme S Clarke SC, Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd: Contract breakers beware! (2009) List A Barristers at 16 May 2009.
Michael Filippich - 8 - 1-12-09
Tabcorp went on to appeal this decision in the High Court. The High Court put
aside arguments relating to Joyner v Weeks19 and instead focused on the principles
established in Bellgrove v Eldridge20. Tabcorp argued that if the test of necessity and
reasonableness in Bellgrove v Eldridge21 were applied to the facts of the case, it would
become apparent that damages should be awarded on the basis of diminution in value and
not the cost of reinstatement. To support this claim Tabcorp relied on expert evidence
that the original foyer would have required substantial refurbishment at the end of the
lease term meaning that the landlord had suffered no financial loss as a result of their
modifications. They also argued that given the commercial nature of the building that
reinstatement was unnecessary as the new foyer was no less effective from a leasing
perspective than the old foyer. Tabcorp drew attention to the large disparity between the
damages award for the cost of rectification and that based on diminution in value as
indicating that the reinstatement of the old foyer was an unreasonable use of funds. They
also claimed that awarding damages based on the cost of rectification would be punitive
in nature and put the landlord in a better position than if the breach had not taken place.
The High Court rejected these arguments claiming that in this case necessity to
produce conformity meant returning the foyer to its original state and not just providing a
foyer that was equally effective as a leasing tool. Tabcorp was bound by the terms of
their lease to leave the foyer unaltered and the only measure of damages that would put
the landlord in the same position that it would have been in had the breach not occurred
was the cost of rectification. The court took the view that the landlord was entitled to the
foyer that it wanted and that damages based on diminution in value would not achieve 19 (1891) 2QB 31. 20 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 21 Ibid.
Michael Filippich - 9 - 1-12-09
this but rather leave them with the foyer that the tenant wanted.22 Although it was not
specifically discussed in the judgment, the tenants intention to carry out the rectification
work no doubt supported their argument that it was reasonable for them to expect that the
contract should be performed.23 The fact that Tabcorps breach was deliberate and
carried out covertly in order to prevent the owner from gaining an injunction would also
have been taken into consideration. This is evidenced by the High Courts reiteration of
the trial judges finding that the breach involved a contumelious disregard for the tenants
rights. In regards to the disparity between the two methods of calculating damages the
court made it clear that the reasonableness test in Belgrove v Eldridge24 did not mean
that any amount in excess of the diminution in value was unreasonable. For these reasons
the appeal was dismissed and the award of $1.38 million dollars to Bowen Investments
was allowed to stand.
IV CONSIDERATIONS OF REASONABLENESS
The decision in Tabcorp v Bowen Investments25 once again demonstrated that
within the Australian legal system the cost of rectification is the starting point for
assessing damages and that awards based on diminution in value are the exception rather
than the rule. Cases from Bellgrove v Eldridge26 onwards have consistently assessed
damages against the contract breaker and in favour of the innocent plaintiff. Those cases
which have gone against the plaintiff and awarded diminution in value damages or
nominal damages have generally been decided on the basis that the cost of rectification
was unnecessary and unreasonable.
22 Clarke GS, above n 18. 23 Ibid. 24 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 25 (2009) HCA 8. 26 (1954) 90 CLR 613.
Michael Filippich - 10 - 1-12-09
The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Brewarrina Shire Council v
Beckhaus Civil Pty Ltd & Anor (2006) NSWCA 361 is one example of where the court
has decided that it would be unreasonable to rectify defective work. This case dealt with
the construction of earthen levee banks around the New South Wales town of Brewarrina
which were designed to protect the town against flooding from the nearby Barwon River.
Geotechnical testing carried out by the council upon completion of the works revealed
that there were problems with the compaction of the soil on the levee banks. This had the
potential to allow seepage and erosion which could eventually result in the failure of the
levee. An expert assessment concluded that only the wet side of the levee bank needed to
be rectified as it was the side in contact with the water and therefore at risk of erosion.
Despite this fact the council claimed rectification costs for both the wet and dry side.
Based on the facts of the case the court found that rectification of the dry side of the levee
was unreasonable because the levee would adequately perform its function without this
work being done. The court concluded an award of damages based on the cost of
rectifying both sides of the levee would be:
out of all proportion to the benefit to be achieved by that expenditure and, further, would not enhance the contractual objective which would be satisfactorily achieved by the rectification work being confined to the wet side of the batter.27
In reaching this decision the New South Wales Court of Appeal cited a number of
defective works cases including the House of Lords decision in Ruxley Electronics &
Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344 (Ruxley). Ruxley28 is the leading common
law case on unreasonable rectification costs. This case dealt with a swimming pool that
was incorrectly built to a depth of 6 foot 9 inches instead of 7 foot 6 inches as specified in
27 Brewarrina Shire Council v Beckhaus Civil Pty Ltd & Anor (2006) NSWCA 361, 92. 28 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344.
Michael Filippich - 11 - 1-12-09
the contract. The owner sued the constructor for a sum of 21,560 which represented the
cost of demolishing the pool and reconstructing it to the correct depth. The case spent
many years working its way through the English court system before eventually being
tried in the House of Lords.
The key issue facing the House of Lords in Ruxley29 was that apart from failing to
meet the specification in regards to depth, the pool was in all other respects adequate for
recreational use. The owner Forsyth was a large man and claimed that he did not feel
safe diving into the pool.30 Expert evidence was provided during the trial to establish that
a man of his stature would be no safer diving into a pool that was 7 foot 6 inches deep
instead of 6 foot 9 inches. It was also noted that the pool did not have a diving board and
there did not appear to be any intention to install one. The court decided that the only
loss that Forsyth had suffered was the loss of enjoyment of the pool. No financial loss
could be attributed to the reduction in depth. The court was therefore reluctant to award
damages on the basis of demolition and reconstruction as they considered that such an
award would be unreasonable because the expenditure would be wholly disproportionate
to the benefit gained. Despite Forsyths undertaking to carry out the demolition and
reconstruction works the court was concerned that an award of rectification costs would
provide him with an underserved windfall. 31 It is a fundamental principle of the common
law that an innocent plaintiff is not entitled to use a technical breach to secure and
uncovenanted profit.32 In the end Forsyth was awarded damages of 2500 pounds for
loss of amenity.
29 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344. 30 Thomas B, above n 1. 31 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344. 32 Dorter J and Sharkey J, Building and Construction Contracts in Australia (Thomson LegalOnline).
Michael Filippich - 12 - 1-12-09
The House of Lords decision in Ruxley33 provides a valuable insight into how
considerations of reasonableness are applied to the assessment of contract damages at
common law. According to the judgment of Lord Jauncey:
Damages are designed to compensate for an established loss and not to provide a gratuitous benefit to the aggrieved party from which it follows that the reasonableness of an award of damages is to be linked directly to the loss sustained. If it is unreasonable in a particular case to award the cost of reinstatement it must be because the loss sustained does not extend to the need to reinstate.34
When this interpretation of damages is applied to the facts in Ruxley35 it becomes
apparent that an award of reinstatement costs would have been unreasonable as the loss
sustained by Forsyth was minor and there was no real need to increase the depth of the
pool. Lord Jauncey went on to justify this assessment by stating that a failure to achieve
the precise contractual objective does not necessarily result in the loss which is
occasioned by a total failure.36
Another important point of law raised in Lord Jaunceys judgment was that
reasonableness is a factor to be considered in determining what the loss was and not
merely a factor in determining which method of assessing damages should be used once a
loss has been established.37 In the case of Ruxley38 the owner had acquired a perfectly
good pool so it would have been unreasonable to demolish it and construct a new one.
The owners loss was not the lack of a useable pool so it followed that damages should
not be awarded on this basis. In determining the owners true loss, the court held that
33 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344. 34 Ibid 357. 35 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344. 36 Ibid 357. 37 Ibid 358. 38 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344.
Michael Filippich - 13 - 1-12-09
personal preference may well be a factor in determining reasonableness but it cannot
itself be determinative of what the loss is.39 The mere fact that Forsyth didnt get exactly
what he bargained for did not necessarily mean that the contract had been inadequately
performed and the works should be demolished. To illustrate this point Lord Jauncey
described a hypothetical situation where an owner has specified that a house shall be
constructed from blue bricks but the builder uses yellow bricks instead. If the house was
otherwise entirely adequate for its designed purpose then it would be unreasonable to
award the owner the cost of demolition and reinstatement solely for the lack of aesthetic
pleasure that blue bricks would provide.40
Another issue that was discussed in detail in Ruxley41 was whether or not the
owners intention to rectify was relevant in determining if reinstatement costs should be
awarded. The court clearly stated that in normal situations it has no concern with how a
plaintiff uses an award of damages once a loss has been established. The innocent party
is entitled to be compensated for the loss regardless of whether or not they intend to use
the money to rectify the breach. This approach is necessary in order for the court to reach
finality by its decision. The decision in Ruxley42 did however establish that the intention
or lack of it to rectify the breach can be relevant to the consideration of reasonableness
and hence the extent of the loss sustained. Once the loss is established the intention to
rectify ceases to be relevant. In discussing this decision, Forsyths solicitor considered
that the House of Lords approach to the intention to rectify meant the only safe course
for an owner to adopt is to not carry out any rectification work but to give an undertaking
39 Ibid 358. 40 Ibid 358. 41 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344. 42 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344.
Michael Filippich - 14 - 1-12-09
to the court to do so if awarded damages.43 The reason for this is that even if the owner
has carried out the rectification work there is no guarantee that the court will consider it
to be necessary and reasonable and award damages that are sufficient to cover the costs
incurred.
V INTENTION TO RECTIFY
Arguments related to the innocent partys intention to rectify have featured
prominently in Australian defective works cases. The issue has been particularly
contentious in situations where the defective building has been sold by the owner or there
is no way for the owner to rectify the defects. The basis for many of these cases is the
Supreme Court of Queensland decision in Director of War Service Homes v Harris
(1968) Qd R 275. Although the owners intention to rectify was not disputed in this case,
it did deal with whether or not the subsequent sale of a defective building limits the
original owners right to damages. In Director of War Service Homes v Harris44 the
builder had substantially departed from the architects specification when constructing a
number of homes. The defective work was not identified until after the homes had been
sold. When the original builder refused to carry out the repairs the Director engaged
another contractor to rectify the defects and commenced proceedings to recover the costs.
43 Miller D, Damages for Defective Works: Reasonableness and Restitution (1995) 11 BCL 348. 44 (1968) Qd R 275.
Michael Filippich - 15 - 1-12-09
The original builder argued that he was not liable for these costs as the properties
had all been sold. The court rejected this argument and awarded damages based on the
cost of rectification in accordance with Bellgrove v Eldridge45. In assessing damages the
court found that it was irrelevant whether or not an owner has sold or given away a
building to a third party as this does not affect their accrued rights. According the Gibbs J:
The owner of a defective building may decide to remedy the defects before he sells it so that he may obtain the highest possible price on the sale; he may sell subject to a condition that he will remedy the defects; or he may resolve to put the building in order after it has been sold because he feels morally, although he is not legally, bound to do so. These matters are nothing to do with the builder, whose liability to pay damages has already accrued.46
The court went on to state that the sale of the building might be one of the
material facts to be considered when assessing whether or not it would be reasonable to
carry out the rectification work but it is by no means fatal to the plaintiffs cause. In this
particular case the court found that the repairs were necessary and reasonable and that it
was irrelevant that the owner had no legal liability to the purchaser to carry out the
repairs. The Director of War Services was a not for profit organisation and therefore felt
morally bound to make repairs. In this instance an assessment of damages based on
diminution in value would be inappropriate as this was not the purpose of erecting the
houses.47
Another case that dealt with the sale of a property and the intention to rectify was
Scott Carver Pty Ltd v SAS Trustee Corporation (2005) NSWCA 462. The architectural
firm Scott Carver Pty Ltd had been engaged by SAS Trustee Corporation to join two
towers by means of a glass pavilion. Upon completion of the works a number of defects
45 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 46 Director of War Service Homes v Harris (1968) Qd R 275, 278-279. 47 Thomas B, above n 1.
Michael Filippich - 16 - 1-12-09
were claimed relating to waterproofing, paving and the construction of a steel pergola.
Carver was named as a party to the claim for defective waterproofing as it had specified
the membrane which had not been adequately installed by the contractor. Prior to the
trial the property was sold to a trust in which SAS had a 50% holding.
Carver submitted that SAS was not entitled to any damages as it had not
performed any rectification work or demonstrated an intention to rectify and that no loss
had been sustained because the property had been sold without any true diminution in
value. It should be noted that the property was sold at a loss however the sale was not at
arms length and the price was specifically reduced to preserve the cause of action. The
case was evaluated by a referee and decided by a Master Macready in favour of SAS
Trustee Corporation.
The decision was appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal where all
three judges upheld the Masters decision. Once again the court decided that damages
should be assessed based on the cost of rectification in accordance with the Belgrove v
Eldgridge48 principle. According to the judgment of Hodgson J Bellgrove v Eldgridge
applied regardless of whether or not the owner carried out the rectification work so long
as it would be reasonable to do so. The mere fact that there was no apparent reduction in
the value of the property upon sale was also not a valid reason for displacing the
Belgrove v Eldridge principle.
48 (1954) 90 CLR 613.
Michael Filippich - 17 - 1-12-09
His Honor proposed that Belgrove v Eldridge would only be displaced if there
were a supervening event that showed with substantial certainty that the work would
never be carried out.49 Hodgson J cited the case of Central Coast Leagues Ltd v Gosford
City Council (Unreported Giles CJ CommD, 9/6/98) in which orders made by the
Environment and Lands Council required more extensive work on a property than that
associated with rectifying the defects. As the rectification work was no longer required
reinstatement costs were not included in the damages assessment. His Honor also drew
attention to the decision in Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wilh Wilhelmsen
Agency Pty Ltd (2002) 18 BCL 122; (2001) NSWCA 313. This case dealt with defective
paving works at an industrial premise. The owner obtained a quote of $512,946 to rectify
the defects however the repairs were actually done at a cost of $354,281 by completing
the work as part of a much larger infrastructure upgrade. The court confirmed that the
owners loss should be assessed based on the actual cost of repair and not the theoretical
cost obtained in the quote. It was considered that the owners decision to carryout the
repairs as part of a larger scope was a supervening event which displaced the original
damages assessment.
One interesting statement made by Hodgson J in obiter was that:
if it were shown that the price received on a sale was unaffected by the defects, or that it was reduced by an amount less than the cost of rectification, this could displace the Bellgrove measure.50
The view that certain circumstances of the sale may displace the Bellgrove v Eldridge51
principle was not embraced by the judgment of Ipp J who considered that the details of
49 Scott Carver Pty Ltd v SAS Trustee Corporation (2005) NSWCA 462, 44. 50 Ibid 47. 51 (1954) 90 CLR 613.
Michael Filippich - 18 - 1-12-09
any contract the owner makes for the sale of a defective building is collateral to the issue
of the owners loss.52 If this were not the case the builder could obtain an undeserved
windfall depending on the rise and fall of the property market. This approach is
consistent with the judgment in De Cesare v Deluxe Motors Pty Ltd (1996) 67 SASR 28
in which the court concluded that even though a defective building had been sold for no
apparent loss it could be inferred that the value of the property had been depressed by the
defects.
Scott Carvers request for special leave to appeal to the High Court was refused
by Kirby J. In delivering this decision His Honor felt that the request did not challenge
the High Court decision in Belgrove v Eldridge nor seek to modify its application. Kirby
J went on to say that whether the subsequent resale of a defective building deprived the
owner of an entitlement to damages in accordance with Belgrove v Eldridge53 might be a
question that would need to be considered by the High Court however the reduction in
sale price by SAS meant that it was an inappropriate case to test this.
Westpoint Management Ltd v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd (2007)
NSWCA 253 is another case which illustrates that the sale of a property at a non-reduced
value prior to repairs being carried out does not prevent the owner from recovering the
cost of rectification. In this case the owner Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd
(Apartments) purchased an old chocolate factory in Stanmore NSW with the view of
redeveloping the site into eighty-seven new apartments. The project was managed and
constructed by Westpoint Management Ltd (Westpoint) who failed to comply with the
52 Ibid 121. 53 (1954) 90 CLR 613.
Michael Filippich - 19 - 1-12-09
plans and specifications by providing finishes of a lower standard. Following the sale of
the units, Apartments filed a claim for damages against Westpoint to recover the
rectification costs for the defective work. The defects included inadequate mechanical
ventilation, the use of hollow doors instead of filled doors, the installation of incorrect
skirting board, the use of the wrong piping materials, problems with the carpark shutters,
repairs requested by the purchasers, falls to showers and the supply of a non-conforming
security system.
The proceedings were referred to the Honorable J M N Rolfe QC for inquiry.
The referees report rejected a majority of the plaintiffs claims on the basis that there
was no evidence that the rectification work would ever be carried out. The claims in
relation to the installation of incorrect skirting boards and the use of hollow doors were
dismissed because the referee considered that their rectification failed to pass the test of
necessity and reasonableness as presented in Belgrove v Eldridge54. These
recommendations were adopted by McDougall J and damages were awarded accordingly.
Apartments appealed this decision claiming that the damages awarded by the
judge should have included the reasonable cost of rectification of the defective work. It
was also submitted that when assessing damages it did not matter that the property had
been sold by the owner, that it was not demonstrated that the owner had suffered a lower
price by reason of the defects, or that the owner had no intention of rectifying the
defects. In considering these arguments the New South Wales Supreme Court applied the
decisions in Scott Carver Pty Ltd v SAS Trustee Corporation55, Director of War Service
54 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 55 (2005) NSWCA 462.
Michael Filippich - 20 - 1-12-09
Homes v Harris56 and De Cesare v Deluxe Motors Pty Ltd57 to conclude that the sale of a
property or the owners decision not to carryout any rectification work did not in itself
establish that the work was unnecessary or unreasonable.
According to the judgment of Gibbs JA with whom McColl and Campbell JJA
agreed the sale of the units was simply one factor that could be considered when
determining whether or not the rectification work was reasonable. For example if
achieving the contractual objective was not of any significance to either Apartments or
the purchasers then it would be possible to conclude that the rectification work was out of
all proportion to the benefit achieved.58 His Honor took a similar approach to the
question of whether Apartments intention not to carry out the rectification work could
prevent them from recovery damages by stating that:
The plaintiffs intention to carry out the rectification work, it seems to me, is not of significance in itself. The plaintiff may intend to carry out rectification work which is not necessary and reasonable, or may intend not to carry out rectification work which is necessary and reasonable. The significance will lie in why the plaintiff intends or does not intend to carry out the rectification work, for the light it sheds on whether the rectification is necessary and reasonable.59
It was considered by Gibbs JA that if the court were concerned with the likelihood of
whether or not rectification work would be performed then there would be the potential
for expensive and time consuming inquiries. His Honor went on to state that once a
compensable loss has been established the court is not concerned with the use to which a
plaintiff puts its damages.60
56 (1968) Qd R 275. 57 (1997) 13 BCL 136. 58 Westpoint Management Ltd v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd (2007) NSWCA 253, 51. 59 Ibid 60. 60 Ibid 54.
Michael Filippich - 21 - 1-12-09
This reasoning was applied to the matters in the case as follows. The court held
that the referees rejection of the damages claims for the mechanical ventilation, hollow
doors, incorrect piping materials, purchasers repairs, falls to showers and the security
system on the basis that Apartments had no intention of carrying out the rectification
work was erroneous and inconsistent with the Bellgrove v Eldridge principle. On this
basis it was decided that the issues should were remitted to McDougal J for further
consideration. The court concluded that the referees assessment was based on an
incorrect interpretation of the judgment of Giles J in Central Coast Leagues Ltd v
Gosford City Council (Unreported Giles CJ CommD, 9/6/98) (Central Coast Leagues
Ltd).61 In Central Coast Leagues Ltd62, the court refused to award damages based on the
cost of rectification as the work would not be carried out because other more extensive
work needed to be done to achieve compliance with local planning requirements. The
court considered this to be a supervening event that established that the plaintiff had not
been deprived of the benefit of performance of the contract and thus had not suffered a
compensable loss. In the case of Westpoint Management Ltd v Chocolate Factory
Apartments Ltd63 no such supervening event had occurred so the reasoning in Central
Coast Leagues Ltd64 did not apply. The court agreed with the referees finding that the
rectification of the skirting board was unnecessary and unreasonable citing the fact that
none of the purchasers had made any complaints in regards to the skirting board and that
carrying out the rectification work would inconvenience them considerably.
61 Ibid 78. 62 Giles CJ CommD, 9/6/98 63 (2007) NSWCA 253. 64 Giles CJ CommD, 9/6/98
Michael Filippich - 22 - 1-12-09
An important principle established by the decision in Westpoint Management Ltd
v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd65 is that if a supervening event occurs which makes
reinstatement impossible then the measure of the building owners loss should be
assessed as the diminution in value. If no diminution in value has occurred the plaintiff
can only recover nominal damages. According to Giles JA with whom McColl and
Campbell JJA agreed:
if supervening events mean that the rectification work cannot be carried out, it can hardly be found that the rectification work is reasonable in order to achieve the contractual objective: achievement of the contractual objective is no longer relevant. If sale of the property to a contented purchaser means that the plaintiff did not think and the purchaser does not think the rectification work needs to be carried out, it may well be found to be unreasonable to carry out, the rectification work.66
This rationale was applied by the Queensland Court of Appeal in UI International
Pty Ltd v Interworks Architects Pty Ltd (2007) QCA 402. In this case the developer sued
the builder for approximately $34 Million to cover the cost of demolishing and rebuilding
a multipurpose residential, retail and office premises that they considered to be poorly
constructed. The developer had already subdivided the premises into several community
title schemes which had been on sold to various other parties. As a result of these sales
the developer was unable to unilaterally carry out the demolition and reinstatement work.
None of the other owners required or permitted the demolition and rectification work to
be done. The court considered that the sale of the units and lack of intention to rectify by
the subsequent owners was a supervening event which made demolition and rebuilding
an unreasonable course to adopt. In this instance the court was satisfied that the owner
could not tear down and re-construct the building and therefore should not be awarded
65 (2007) NSWCA 253 66 Westpoint Management Ltd v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd (2007) NSWCA 253, 61.
Michael Filippich - 23 - 1-12-09
damages on this basis. As no diminution in value could be established by the sale of the
property the developer was only awarded nominal damages.
The Victorian Supreme Court decision in Alucraft Pty Ltd v Grocon Ltd (No 2)
(1996) 2 VR 386 is another example of where the owners intention not to rectify the
defective work limited the plaintiffs ability to claim the full cost of rectification. Grocon
was the head contractor on a project to construct an office building and car park in
Flinders Street, Melbourne. Alucraft entered into an agreement with Grocon to supply
and install the aluminum and steel windows for the building. It should be noted that
neither party in the dispute had any ownership or financial interest in the building. Upon
completion of the works defects were identified in the paint work of the steel surrounds
that supported the windows. The rectification of the defective paint work was not given a
high priority by the owner or contractors during the defects liability period. Prior to
issuing the final certificate the owner showed no concern that the defects had not been
rectified.
Four years later Alucraft claimed the balance outstanding under their subcontract.
Grocon issued a counter claim of $118,000 for the cost of rectifying the defective work
citing the Belgrove v Eldrige principle. This claim was based on the possibility that
Grocon would incur a loss if they were required by the owner to carry out the repairs to
the defective work done by Alucraft. Grocon also claimed that it had suffered a loss
because it had not received the benefit contracted for. Alucraft argued that neither the
owner nor Grocon had attempted to rectify the defective work or shown any intention to
do so in the past four years. It was also submitted that if Grocon were awarded the full
cost of rectification without being required to complete the repairs they would be placed
in a better financial position as a result of the breach.
Michael Filippich - 24 - 1-12-09
In deciding the case Smith J considered that an assessment of damages in
accordance with the Belgrove v Eldridge67 principle would not pass the reasonableness
test because over four years had elapsed since all parties had become aware of the breach,
no work had been done to rectify the defects, the proprietor had accepted the work and
issued the final certificate and Grocon had no intention of carrying out the repairs. His
Honor concluded that the proper assessment of damages was by reference to the risk of
Grocon being required to complete the work. After a thorough review of the
correspondence between the parties in relation to the defects, Smith J concluded that the
risk of the owner seeking compensation from or rectification by Grocon was very
remote. His Honor then evaluated the two different proposals for carrying out the repairs
and decided that the appropriate cost of rectification was approximately $35,000. In
awarding damages to Grocon this sum was discounted to $5000 to reflect the low risk of
the loss actually being incurred.
VI ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ASSESSING DAMAGES
The judgment in Alucraft Pty Ltd v Grocon Ltd (No 2)68 illustrates the difficulty
faced by the court in striking an appropriate balance when assessing damages so as not to
enrich the aggrieved party or award damages that are too low. In most cases an
assessment of damages based on the cost of rectification or diminution in value provides
a suitable remedy for the offending party's breach. Situations inevitably arise when the
cost of rectification is out of all proportion with the benefit to be obtained by the
owner or no diminution in value can be attributed to the defective work. Due to the
compensatory nature of contract damages the court has traditionally been prevented from
67 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 68 (1996) 2 VR 386.
Michael Filippich - 25 - 1-12-09
awarding anything more than a nominal sum under these circumstances. Over the past
few decades there has been a growing recognition of a third intermediate measure of
damages based on loss of amenity.69 This method of assessing damages is linked to the
owner's expectation of contractual performance and enables the court to find a middle
ground between the cost of rectification which may be unreasonably large and the
diminution in value of the defective works which may be nil.
An assessment of contract damages based on loss of amenity was first introduced
by the House of Lord's in Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth70 to deal with
the owner's loss of enjoyment of a pool which had been constructed seven inches too
shallow. The court introduced this concept in order to place some value on the builder's
promise to construct the pool as specified even though no financial loss could be
attributed to the reduction in depth. According to Lord Mustill this represented the value
of the 'consumer surplus' a reasonable person would have attributed to the successful
performance of the contract.71 Although this sum is usually incapable of precise
calculation in terms of money, because it represents a personal, subjective and non-
financial gain, Lord Mustill held that the court should nevertheless recognise its existence
and compensate the promisee if the misperformance takes it away. His Honor was not
concerned by the fact that the amount could not be directly quantified stating that 'judges
are well accustomed to putting figures to intangibles' and that the assessment of damages
should not be so inflexible that the only remedy to unjustly awarding too little was to
unjustly award to much.72
69 Bates D, The Assessment of Contractual Damages for Defective Building Work in Australia: Is Loss of Amenity an Available Measure? (1999) 15 BCL 2. 70 (1996) 1 AC 344. 71 Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344, 361. 72 Ibid 361.
Michael Filippich - 26 - 1-12-09
The judgment of Lord Lloyd adopted the more conservative view that loss of
amenity damages were based upon an exception to the general rule in Addis v
Gramophone Co Ltd (1909) AC 488 which established that contractual damages may not
be awarded for injured feelings.73 The distinguishing feature in Ruxley74 was that the
pool was constructed for the purpose of providing pleasure so the plaintiff was entitled to
recover damages for his disappointment. In reaching this conclusion Lord Lloyd
followed the precedent set in Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd (1973) 1 All ER 71 which dealt
with a damages claim against a tour operator. In this case the court concluded that a tour
was effectively a contract to afford pleasure between the operator and the customer. If
the tour was unacceptable the customer would be entitled to claim damages against the
operator for a breach of contract. One common feature of the judgments of Lord Mustill
and Lord Loyd is that both judges referred to loss of amenity damages as being primarily
applicable to small building works on residential property and not complex commercial
agreements between sophisticated parties.75
Critics of the decision in Ruxley76 argue that an assessment of damages based
upon the idea of 'a consumer surplus' effectively introduces a form of restitutionary
damages into contractual disputes that will lead to greater uncertainty and
unpredictability in the assessment of damages.77 By applying loss of amenity damages
the House of Lords created an artificial distinction between different types of builiding
work based on whether or not it is used to provide pleasure. For example loss of amenity
damages may be recoverable for a defective pool but not an imperfect fence as this has no 73 Ibid 373. 74 (1996) 1 AC 344. 75 Ibid 359. 76 (1996) 1 AC 344. 77 Miller D, above n 43.
Michael Filippich - 27 - 1-12-09
pleasureable quality.78 Similary an owner may be able to recover loss of amenity
damages for defective work at their domestic residence but not at their investment or
commercial property. It is an underlying principle in the law of contracts that the owner
is entitled to work which conforms to the plans and specifications. If a contractor
disagrees with the owner's requirements they should raise their concerns during the
tender phase. Skilled contractors operating in their area of expertise should not need the
courts to save them from the obligation of rectifying their defective work. Such an
approach would protect inefficient and incompetent builders from the consequences of
their actions.
Within the Australian legal system loss of amenity damages have only been
awarded in a small number of lower court cases. In D. Galambos & Sons Pty Ltd v
McIntyre (1974) 5 ACTR 10 Woodward J found that the reduced height of a garage
ceiling diminished the owner's enjoyment of their house but did not result in any loss of
value to the property. His Honor was not prepared to the find that the owners had
suffered a compensable financial loss and instead awarded loss of amenity
damages. More recently in Coshott v Fewings Joinery Pty Ltd (Unreported Gleeson CJ,
Priestley and Beazley JJA, 15 July 1996) the trial judge awarded the plaintiff $5 as
compensation for the inconvenience they had suffered due to defective work. It remains
to be seen whether loss of amenity damages will be adopted by the High Court in
Australia. Although such an approach has the potential to provide a more equitable
remedy in situations where the cost of rectification is unreasonable and the diminution in
value is nil there is scarce authority to support such a judgment in cases outside the realm
of domestic building contracts. 78 Bates D, above n 70.
Michael Filippich - 28 - 1-12-09
Another approach to reducing contract damages that has yet to gain widespread
application in Australian defective works cases is the concept of a 'betterment discount' .
The purpose of a betterment discount is to take into consideration the depreciation of the
works due to wear and tear prior to the need for rectification. This issue was considered
by the High Court of Australia in the case of Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen
Investments79 as a way of reducing the rectification damages for a building foyer that
would not be refurbished by the owner for at least another five years. By this stage the
foyer would have had between fifteen to twenty years wear and tear. In the end no issues
were raised by the tenant in regards to this so the discount was not applied.
It is proposed that any request made by the tenant for the application of a
betterment discount would more than likely have been unsuccessful. A similar issue was
considered by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty
Ltd v Wilh Wilhelmsen Agency Pty Ltd80. This case dealt with a section of pavement that
had a design life of twenty years but had failed after four. Although all three Court of
Appeal judges agreed that the owner should be awarded the full cost of rectification
Meagher JA considered that this amount should be reduced by 20% to take into
consideration that the pavement was four years old by the time the defects were
identified. His Honor held that by receiving a brand new pavement in place of a four
year old pavement the owner was receiving a windfall that he did not deserve. According
to Sheller JA with whom Giles JA agreed:
The plaintiff had no choice but to replace the defective pavement with new pavement. It could not do so by paying less for a four year old pavement. There was no evidence of any advantage to the plaintiff beyond the speculative proposition that the new pavement might last longer than the old one would have, if it had been properly laid.
79 (2009) HCA 8. 80 (2002) 18 BCL 122; (2001) NSWCA 313.
Michael Filippich - 29 - 1-12-09
It is likely that a similar line or reasoning would have been followed by the High
Court in Tabcorp81 when considering whether or not a betterment discount should be
awarded. If a betterment discount was applied by the High Court it would more than
likely have been calculated based on an assessment of the tenant's loss on the day of the
breach plus interest or by estimating the future cost of the rectification work and
discounting this amount to net present value rather than by applying a 'crude percentage
discount'.82 Another method which could be used to calculate damages taking into
consideration betterment would be to apply the formula detailed in Waddams, The Law of
Damages (1983) and referred to with approval by Sheller JA in Hyder Consulting. 83
This approach attempts to calculate the loss imposed on the plaintiff as a result of them
having to spend money they would otherwise not have spent if it were not for the
defective work. For example in the case of the defective pavement the plaintiff's
discounted loss could be calculated based on the additional costs they have incurred by
having to replace the pavement after four years instead of after twenty.
81 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) HCA 8. 82 Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wilh Wilhelmsen Agency Pty Ltd (2002) 18 BCL 122; (2001) NSWCA 313 ,55. 83 Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wilh Wilhelmsen Agency Pty Ltd (2002) 18 BCL 122; (2001) NSWCA 313.
Michael Filippich - 30 - 1-12-09
VI CONCLUSION
It is a fundamental principle of law that contracts should be performed. In this
regard the High Court decision in Bellgrove v Eldridge84 remains binding precedent for
the assessment of contract damages at common law for defective work. The line of cases
that have followed this landmark decision have confirmed the ruling principle that the
plaintiffs loss for a breach of contract is prima facie the cost of rectifying the defective
works. This assessment is subject to the qualification that not only must the rectification
work be necessary to produce conformity but that it must also be a reasonable course to
adopt. In situations where the cost of rectification is considered to be unnecessary or
unreasonable, damages should be awarded based on the diminution in value. If the
diminution in value is nil then there is some scope for the court to award damages for loss
of amenity particularly in situations where the purpose of the works is to provide
pleasure. Within the Australian legal system there is scarce authority to indicate the
widespread acceptance of loss of amenity damages as an intermediate measure between
the cost of rectification and nil diminution in value.
Over the years a number of cases have further qualified the Belgrove v Eldridge85
principle. Scott Carver Pty Ltd v SAS Trustee Corporation86, Director of War Service
Homes v Harris87 and De Cesare v Deluxe Motors Pty Ltd88 have established that
although a plaintiffs intention to rectify the defective work may be one factor to consider
when determining whether or not the cost of rectification is reasonable it ceases to be
84 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 85 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 86 (2005) NSWCA 462. 87 (1968) Qd R 275. 88 (1997) 13 BCL 136.
Michael Filippich - 31 - 1-12-09
relevant once a compensable loss has been established. Similarly the fact that the
defective works has been subsequently sold for no apparent diminution in value does not
preclude the plaintiff from recovering the cost of bringing about compliance with the
contract.
Recent decisions in Central Coast Leagues Ltd v Gosford City Council89,
Westpoint Management Ltd v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd90 and UI International
Pty Ltd v Interworks Architects Pty Ltd91 have indicated that the Belgrove v Eldridge
principle may be displaced by certain supervening events. In the case of UI International
Pty Ltd v Interworks Architects Pty Ltd92 the sale of a building and the new owners
intention not to rectify was considered to be one such supervening event which precluded
the owner from claiming the cost of demolition and reconstruction. It is still unclear what
recognition if any the High Court will give to the rationale that Belgrove v Eldridge93 can
be displaced by supervening events that show with substantial certainty that rectification
work will not take place. Future arguments against an assessment of damages in
accordance with Belgrove v Eldridge94 will most likely be framed with the aim of
extending the scope of what the court considers to be a supervening event. It is also
likely that defendants will attempt to discount the full cost of rectification by raising the
issue of betterment and unjust enrichment against the plaintiff. Whether or not this
approach is capable of restricting the application of the Belgrove v Eldridge principle
remains to be seen.
89 (Giles CJ CommD, 9/6/98) 90 (2007) NSWCA 253. 91 (2007) QCA 402. 92 (2007) QCA 402. 93 (1954) 90 CLR 613. 94 (1954) 90 CLR 613.
Michael Filippich - 32 - 1-12-09
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Articles / Books / Reports
Bailey IH and Bell M, Understanding Australian construction contracts (2008). Bates D, The Assessment of Contractual Damages for Defective Building Work in Australia: Is Loss of Amenity an Available Measure? (1999) 15 BCL 2. Cremean DJ, Shnookal BA and Whitten MH, Brooking on building contracts: the law and practice relating to building and engineering agreements (4th ed, 2004). Dorter J and Sharkey J, Building and Construction Contracts in Australia (Thomson LegalOnline). Jones D, Building and Construction Claims and Disputes (1996). Miller D, Damages for Defective Works: Reasonableness and Restitution (1995) 11 BCL 348. Thomas B, The assessment of damages for breach of contract for defective building work (2004) 20 BCL 230. 2. Case Law Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd (1909) AC 488. Alucraft Pty Ltd v Grocon Ltd (No 2) (1996) 2 VR 386. Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613. Brewarrina Shire Council v Beckhaus Civil Pty Ltd & Anor (2006) NSWCA 361. Coshott v Fewings Joinery Pty Ltd (Unreported Gleeson CJ, Priestley and Beazley JJA, 15 July 1996). D Galambos & Sons Pty Ltd v McIntyre (1974) 5 ACTR 10. De Cesare v Deluxe Motors Pty Ltd (1997) 13 BCL 136. Director of War Service Homes v Harris (1968) Qd R 275. Central Coast Leagues Ltd v Gosford City Council (Unreported Giles CJ CommD, 9/6/98)
Michael Filippich - 33 - 1-12-09
Hyder Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wilh Wilhelmsen Agency Pty Ltd (2002) 18 BCL 122; (2001) NSWCA 313. J-Corp Ltd v Gilmour (2005) WASCA 136. Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd (1973) 1 All ER 71. Joyner v Weeks (1891) 2QB 31. Kirkby & Anor v Coote & Ors (2006) QCA 61. Robinson v Harman (1848) I Ex 850. Roluke Pty Ltd & Anor v Lamaro Consultants Pty Ltd & Anor (2008) NSWCA 323. Ruxley Electronics & Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1996) 1 AC 344. Scott Carver Pty Ltd v SAS Trustee Corporation (2005) NSWCA 462. Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) HCA 8. UI International P/L v Interworks Architects P/L & Ors (2007) QCA 402. Westpoint Management Ltd v Chocolate Factory Apartments Ltd (2007) NSWCA 253. 4. Other Sources
Christopoulous N and Fan J, When can rectification costs be recovered as damages for breach of contract? High Court clarifies (2009) Clayton Utz Project Insights at 16 May 2009. Graeme S Clarke SC, Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd: Contract breakers beware! (2009) List A Barristers at 16 May 2009. Jim Doyle, Defective Work Claims (2005) Doyles Construction Lawyers at 16 May 2009. Minter Ellison Alert, High Court confirms damages award on unauthorised alterations to leased premises (2009) Minter Ellison Lawyers at 16 May 2009.