Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: WINROBE PTY LTD v SUNDIN'S BUILDING CO PTY LTD [No 2] [1992] NSWCA 278 Decision date: 24 December 1992
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Winrobe Pty Ltd v Sundin's Building Co Pty Ltd [No 2] [1992] NSWCA 278
- Case
- [1992] NSWCA 278
- Decision Date
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.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.