A.J. GRANT BUILDING PTY LTD v Wright t/as JALD GROUP ROOFING [2026] NSWDC 151

Catchwords: DAMAGES – Assessment of damages for breach of contract pursuant to default judgment COSTS – Whether gross sum costs order appropriate District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: A.J. GRANT BUILDING PTY LTD v Wright t/as JALD GROUP ROOFING [2026] NSWDC 151 Hearing dates: 12 March 2026 Date of orders: 19 May 2026 Decision date: 19 May 2026 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Catsanos SC DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $202,820.48 including pre-judgment interest. (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs assessed on a gross sum basis in the amount of $45,000. Catchwords: DAMAGES – Assessment of damages for breach of contract pursuant to default judgment COSTS – Whether gross sum costs order appropriate Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56, 98, 100 Cases Cited: Bechara (t/as Bechara and Company) v Bates [2016] NSWCA 294 Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 Harrison v Schipp [2012] NSWCA 213 James v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2017] NSWCA 84 Manariti Plumbing Pty Ltd v Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 185 Sneddon v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 351 Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 99 Category: Principal judgment Parties: A.J. Grant Building Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Allan John Wright t/as JALD Group Roofing (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr C Chiam (Plaintiff) No appearance (Defendant) Solicitors: Piper Alderman (Plaintiff) No appearance (Defendant) File Number(s): 2024/00475189 Judgment Background These proceedings come before me for the assessment of damages following upon the entry of default judgment against the defendant on 30 April 2025 in respect of claims made in the amended statement of claim filed 9 January 2025. The defendant did not appear at the hearing, although I am comfortably satisfied on the evidence before me that he was aware of the hearing date. The plaintiff ’ s claim lies in breach of contract. By way of background, the plaintiff carried on business as a builder, retained predominantly by insurers to undertake rectification works at residential premises which were the subject of insurance claims for property damage. The plaintiff engaged subcontractors, including the defendant, to undertake work it had been retained to perform. The defendant conducted a roofing business so , generally speaking, the work he performed for the plaintiff involved roof and gutter repairs. The plaintiff ’ s business model involved it performing the work promptly and satisfactorily for its insurer clients to ensure a continuity of work. The plaintiff pleads it entered an agreement with the defendant around January 2017 , whereby the defendant agreed he would undertake repair works as instructed by the plaintiff through the issue and acceptance of purchase orders . E ach individual contract for repair work formed by acceptance of the purchase order incorporat ed the plaintiff ’ s terms and conditions. The plaintiff pleads that the terms and conditions of its contract s with the defendant included, inter-alia, a procedure for dealing with works performed by the defendant which were deemed unsatisfactory. U pon receipt of notice from the plaintiff, the defendant was required to promptly organise an inspection and consult with the plaintiff to arrange correction of the defective works. In the event that the defendant did not rectify those defects within the stipulated timeframe, the plaintiff was entitled, after providing 7 days ’ notice, to have the defective works repaired by another person at the defendant ’ s expense. The amended statement of claim pleads various other terms and conditions, both express and implied, going to the defendant ’ s obligation to perform works competently and in accordance with statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). The plaintiff pleads that the defendant carried out work which was defective or otherwise non-compliant with his contractual obligations at 14 nominated properties. In each instance , the plaintiff alleges in essence that the defendant was paid for the job, that the work was carried out by the defendant in breach of the express and implied terms of the agreement as to quality of work, that the defendant failed to rectify the defects in accordance with his obligations under the agreement, that the plaintiff retained and paid other contractors to rectify the defective works in accordance with the agreement , and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover those costs from the defendant. Establishing Damages Although the defendant took no active role in the hearing, the C ourt must of course be vigilant to ensure the damages assessed are properly proven and legally available. W hen dealing with the assessment of damages arising from a default judgment, the plaintiff will be taken to have established the facts pleaded in the statement of claim which are ‘ legally indispensable ’ to the default judgment . [1] In the present case, that translates to the plaintiff having established the existence, terms and breach of the contracts pleaded in the amended statement of claim. It remains to assess the damages resulting from those breaches. The plaintiff has been thorough and methodical in the evidence led to establish its damages. What I will describe in this judgment as ‘ the plaintiff ’ s evidence in support of the claim ’ is made up as follows : Darren John Vardy, the liquidator of the plaintiff, in an affidavit sworn 21 November 2025, establishes the foundational basis for the contractual terms applying to each job and, in each instance, the payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant for the contracted works, the notification of defects to the defendant, the failure by the defendant to rectify the defective works, the retention of alternative contractors to undertake the necessary rectification works, the costs incurred by the plaintiff for those rectification works , and the charge back by the plaintiff to the defendant for those costs. Otherwise, the plaintiff relies upon quality inspection reports which generally reflect inspections undertaken at the property in response to complaints made by the owner/occupier following work performed by the defendant. Typically, the reports set out details of the complaints, observations made by the inspector , and action required to repair the defective work. Often , the defect extends to repairing damage caused by the defective works, typically the ingress of water. To supplement those factual matters, the plaintiff also relies on an expert report of Gordon Xue dated 15 January 2026. Mr Xue provides evidence in respect of each property which involves a review of the quality inspection reports, a review of the costs in the invoices for the rectification work, scrutiny of the costs of that rectification work by reference to industry standards, and the application of his expertise to determine whether , in his opinion , the amounts charged for the rectification work are reasonable. Mr Xue is a qualified builder and quantity surveyor. I am satisfied he has specialised knowledge by reason of his training, study and experience which fits him to provide the opinions he has expressed. My review of Mr Xue ’ s report satisfies me that, other than where indicated in this judgment, he has provided the foundational basis for the opinions he has expressed. In terms of legal principle, t he plaintiff approaches the assessment of damages for contractual breach in the following way. Firstly, it says that the agreement between the parties provides the mechanism for determining damages for breach in requiring the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of rectification works. Otherwise, the plaintiff relies on common law principles and argues that the measure of damages available to the plaintiff is the amount required to put the plaintiff in the position it would have been in had the defendant performed the contract as agreed. Alternatively, the plaintiff argues that the costs incurred in performing remedial works are costs reasonably incurred by the plaintiff to mitigate against its loss on the basis that the insurer for whom the plaintiff performed the work would seek to hold the plaintiff liable for the defects , and the plaintiff simply took reasonable steps to prevent that liability. I consider t he plaintiff has established the defendant was contractually bound to bear the reasonable cost of rectification work. Approached another way, that cost reflects the proper measure of damages for breach of contract on a doctrinal basis, being the cost of putting the plaintiff in the position it would have been had the contracts not been breached. Assessment of Damages I turn then to the assessment of damages and observe that Mr Chiam, who appeared for the plaintiff, consistent with his obligations to the C ourt, has been scrupulous in his approach and pointed out instances where the evidence fell short of supporting the claim advanced or where questions of principle impact on the availability of some of the amounts claimed. In assessing damages, I will deal with each property separately in the order they were addressed at the hearing. Tumbi Road Wamberal The plaintiff ’ s evidence in support of the claim advanced the reasonable cost of rectification work at this property as $47,553. However, the plaintiff acknowledges that within that allowance by Mr Xue is an amount of $2 , 640 being the plaintiff ’ s supervision costs. Mr Chiam correctly points out that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover those internal costs as costs causally related to the breach. Accordingly, allowing for that deduction, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to sum of $44,913 for rectification work to this property . I make the observation that in respect of this and some of the other properties, the amount claimed eclipses, sometimes substantially, the amount charged by the defendant for the work in the first instance. This , it appears, is largely a product of the fact that the rectification work involve d repairing damage caused by the defective work, generally associated with the ingress of water. I anticipate costs increases over time may also be a factor . Otherwise, the differential may conceivably , to some extent , reflect the fact that the defendant charged below market rates for the work . In any event, other than where I indicate to the contrary, the evidence establishes in a considered way that the charges are reasonable and a product of the defective work. Lunam Street Broken Hill Mr Xue analysed the cost of the rectification works at this property and found the amount of $34,206.08 to be fair and reasonable. Whilst some of the invoices for that work make reference to ‘ maintenance issues ’ , I am satisfied those descriptions are shorthand only and that the works concerned, as Mr Xue accepts, were works involving rectification of the work performed by the defendant. Accordingly, on all the evidence, I allow the sum of $34,206.08 for rectification work to this property . Woodcourt Road Berowra Heights The plaintiff ’ s evidence in support of the claim for works at this property establishes the sum $16,863 to reflect the reasonable cost of rectification, which is the amount I allow. Williams Lane Broken Hill Appropriately, no claim is pressed in respect of the rectification works performed at this property because Mr Xue was unable to form an opinion as to whether the rectification works related to the works originally performed by the defendant. Mr Chiam fairly conceded in those circumstances the plaintiff is unable to discharge its onus in respect of this aspect of the claim. Hayden Road Wamberal There are two issues arising out of the plaintiff ’ s evidence in support of th e claim related to this property which require consideration . Firstly, there is the cost $550 claimed for a quality review report, although th at report is not available. Nonetheless, in the context of evidence establishing the rectification works which were undertaken, it is reasonable to assume that the report in question was prepared and provided the basis for determining the scope of the rectification work required. Secondly, amongst the rectification work referred to is an amount of $4,609 for work rectifying internal water damage caused by the defective work. However, apart from reference to a ‘ damaged raked ceiling ’ in the invoice for repairs, there is no evidence setting out precisely what the damage was and linking it to defective work performed by the defendant. Nonetheless, in circumstances where there is clear evidence that the defect ive work involved failures with roof and guttering and ingress of water , it seems to me the work to repair the ceiling at that time can reasonably be considered to have been caused by the defective work in question . That conclusion was also reached by Mr Xue, who in his report scrutinised and reduced the amount claimed by the plaintiff. In those circumstances I am satisfied the sum of $13,509.22 supported as it is by Mr Xue, reflects the reasonable cost of rectifying the defendant ’ s defective work at this property and I allow that amount in the assessment of the plaintiff ’ s damages. Orana Place Red Head The plaintiff ’ s evidence in support of the claim in relation to this property includes the amount of $672.73 representing a cash settlement for water damaged carpet which was paid to the owner of the property. The defective work resulted in damage to the property caused by water leaks. In that context. I accept, as Mr Xue concluded, that payment to recompense the owner for part of th e damage was a legitimate cost related to the rectification work. Otherwise, as the plaintiff ’ s counsel properly d rew to my attention, Mr Xue in his calculation of reasonable rectification costs included an amount of $314.60, which in fact involves double counting as that amount was allowed elsewhere. Accordingly, making that adjustment, the evidence establishes the reasonable cost of rectification work to this property to be $5 , 819.73 and I allow that amount. Idlewood Crescent Rainbow Flat I am satisfied on the plaintiff ’ s evidence in support of the claim that the reasonable cost of rectification work to this property is the sum of $9 , 262 and I allow that amount. McGowen Street Broken Hill The plaintiff properly concedes that on the evidence it cannot establish the work claimed in relation to this property was a product of defective work by the defendant, there being no inspection report available to establish that fact. Accordingly, I make no allowance for this aspect of the claim . Tallwood Drive Tallswood Village The reasonable rectification costs assessed by Mr Xue in respect of this property total $9 , 262. I am satisfied on the plaintiff ’ s evidence in support of the claim that the amount assessed by Mr Xue is reasonable. However, the invoice rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant for that rectification work was in fact for a slightly higher amount of $9 , 665.70 but significantly then provided ‘ L ESS CREDITED OFF A CCOUNT - $9155.30 ’ leaving a balance said to be owing of $510.40. The plaintiff argues that this apparent set-off does not affect the claim for the rectification works. It argues that conceptually the defendant still owes the money to the plaintiff and the plaintiff separately owes money to the defendant so that the defendant could theoretically dispute the amount of the set off and claim more back. Otherwise, whilst unlikely, it is said the defendant could argue there ought not be any set off. I do not accept the plaintiff ’ s position. The plaintiff has made a claim for rectification work and has sought a net balance after allowing a set off. I do not consider there is any realistic chance the defendant would argue there ought be no set off. Otherwise , if the defendant wishe d to argue there should be a greater set off that is something he could have done by appearing to contest the assessment of damages. As I see it, the plaintiff ’ s claim for these rectification works, by its own approach, requires a reduction of $9 , 155.30. In the circumstances I apply that reduction to the amount allowed by Mr Xue of $9 , 262 and allow the balance of $106.70 . Hobart Avenue Umina Beach Mr Xue provides an opinion that the reasonable cost of rectification work in respect of this property based on the inspection report and invoices is $11,882.68. The plaintiff contends that Mr Xue has made a transcription error in recording the sum of $4 , 962.50 as the cost of rectification work based on an invoice number 26618 from the contractor who undertook that work. That invoice is in fact for a total amount of $9 , 515, a component of which is $4 , 962.50. It is obvious that Mr Xue in fact considered the total amount of $9 , 515 was reasonable and necessary – he expressly says so in the body of his report . Equally it is clear that in providing his final tabulated assessment as to the reasonable cost of rectification work for this property Mr Xue has mistakenly inserted the amount of $4 , 962.50 rather than the full amount of $9 , 515. The error is so obvious when one reads Mr Xue ’ s report that it can be accepted without further evidence . W hen one factors in that transposition error , the evidence establishes the sum of $16 ,425.18 as the reasonable cost of the rectification works in question, and I allow that amount in the assessment of the plaintiff ’ s damages. Argent Street Broken Hill The plaintiff ’ s evidence in support of the claim establishes that the amount of $13,132.90 reflects the reasonable cost of repairing the defective work performed by the defendant at this property and I allow that amount in the assessment of the plaintiff ’ s damages. Boora Boora Road Kincumber Again, the pl a intiff ’ s evidence in support of the claim establishes that the amount claimed of $6 , 747.90 reflects the reasonable cost of repairing the defective work performed by the defendant on this property and I allow that amount in the assessment of the plaintiff ’ s damages. Meadows Close Black Head Similarly, the plaintiff ’ s evidence in support of the claim makes good the rectification costs for this property, supported by Mr Xue in the amount of $1 , 804 . I allow that amount in the assessment of the plaintiff ’ s damages. Turner Street Berowra Heights The rectification work claimed for this property involved an omission by the defendant to use a proper seal. Providing that seal was not part of the defendant ’ s initial invoice but according to Mr Xue the failure to use th e seal was a departure from the standards that would have been observed by a reasonable builder and thus explain s, at least in part , the failure which occurred. I accept Mr Xue ’ s evidence on that point. In assessing reasonable costs , Mr Xue accepts an amount of $7 , 116 reflecting the cost of materials. However, in doing so he acknowledges there is no breakdown of those costs , saying ‘ In my opinion, material would be required to be replaced to rectify the water damage, in such circumstances, I have allowed the material costs as it would usually be needed ’ . The materials referred to by Mr Xue were for reinstating and repairing damage caused to the internal parts of the property. O ne can assume some materials would have been required as part of the rectification work. However, without the invoice identifying those materials or Mr Xue explaining what is contemplated by th e amount he allowed , I consider his opinion accepting the cost of (undisclosed) materials as fair and reasonable to be without a foundational basis and not a statement of expert opinion. For those reasons I do not allow the claimed cost of materials and accordingly, otherwise accepting the views expressed by Mr Xue I allow the sum of $4 , 130.77 as the reasonable cost of rectification works on this property. Interest The plaintiff claims interest on its damages. Interest is not punitive but is aimed at compensating a successful party for not having had the benefit of monies to which it was entitled. I am satisfied on Mr Vardy ’ s evidence that the plaintiff incurred the costs of the subcontractors it retained to undertake the rectification work which was then charged back to the defendant. The plaintiff provided a comprehensive schedule which details the claim for interest running from the date of the charge backs for each property claimed from the defendant or , in other words , when the demand for payment was first made. I consider that is a reasonable approach in the circumstances. Accordingly, adopting the methodology in the plaintiff ’ s schedule, but adjusting those figures to accommodate the modifications I have made to the amounts claimed, I allow the sum of $35, 9 00 (rounded down) pursuant s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ( ‘ CPA ’ ) in respect of pre - judgment interest . Summary For those reason s , judgment will be entered in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $ 202,820.48 including pre - judgment interest , which is made up as follows: Property Damages Tumbi Road Wamberal $44,913.00 Lunam Street Broken Hill $34,206.08 Woodcourt Road Berowra Heights $16,863.00 Williams Lane Broken Hill $Nil Hayden Road Wamberal $13,509.22 Orana Place Red Head $5,819.73 Idlewood Crescent Rainbow Flat $9,262.00 McGowen Street Broken Hill $Nil Tallwood Drive Tallswood Village $106.70 Hobart Avenue Umina Beach $16,425.18 Argent Street Broken Hill $13,132.90 Boora Boora Road Kincumber $6,747.90 Meadow Close Black Head $1,804.00 Turner Street Berowra Heights $4,130.77 Sub Total: $166,920.48 Pre-Judgment Interest: $35,900.00 Total: $202,820.48 Costs The defendant seeks a gross sum costs order in the circumstances. Essentially this is because , from his approach to date, the defendant is unlikely to engage and inevitably the matter would have to proceed to assessment, th us generating more costs. Correspondence from the defendant which is in evidence suggests he is impecunious, leading , it is said, to a cascading set of circumstance s justifying a gross sum costs order. The considerations relevant to the exercise of the C ourt ’ s discretion to make a gross sum costs order as contemplated by s 98 of the CPA is ground well travelled in the authorities . Inevitably, factors impacting on whether to make such an order are case sensitive. Ultimately, as I see it, the general thread to be extracted from the authorities is that the discretion to make a gross sum costs order should be exercised when to do so reflects the interests of justice with an eye on the overriding purpose reflected in s 56 of the C P A , namely to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings. F actors which may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion to make a gross sum costs order include: Whether the assessment of costs would be protracted and expensive ( Harrison v Schipp [2012] NSWCA 213 at [21]-[23] ). Whether the party obliged to pay costs would not be in a position to meet a liability likely to result from the assessment of costs ( Schipp (supra)) . Costs should generally be resolved with as little technicality and expense as reasonably practicable ( James v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2017] NSWCA 84 at [3] (Basten JA)) . The relative responsibility of the parties for the costs incurred ( Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 at [813]-[820] (Beazley JA)) . The degree of any disproportion between the issue litigated and the costs claimed ( Hamod (supra)) . Whether there is a lack of proportionality between the complexity and cost of the assessment process and the amount at stake ( Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 99 at [28], [3 1 ] ) . Whether the total costs of litigation will become even more disproportionate if the costs are referred for assessment ( Bechara (t/as Bechara and Company) v Bates [2016] NSWCA 294 at [18] ) . Otherwise , the authorities establish that the Court may take a broad brush approach to the assessment of gross sum costs but must be in a position to make an informed and fair assessment. As Giles JA said in Schipp (at [22]) , ‘ The power should only be exercised when the Court considers that it can do so fairly between the parties, and that includes sufficient confidence in arriving at an appropriate sum on the materials available ’ . Having said that , as pointed out in Hamod at [819] , a C ourt entertaining an application for a gross sum costs order is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the kind that would be appropriate to a taxation or formal costs assessment and, as observed in Bechara v Bates at [14], the process is not akin to a formal costs assessment, which would defeat the purpose of the order. As the C ourt of A ppeal recently observed in Manariti Plumbing Pty Ltd v Universal Property Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [ 2025] NSWCA 185 at [38] , C ourts typically apply a discount when assessing costs on a gross sum basis which may involve an impressionistic reduction of the costs actually incurred to take into account the contingencies that would otherwise be faced in a formal costs assessment. I have formed the view that a gross sum costs order is appropriate in the present case. The defendant has chosen to take no part in these proceedings. The plaintiff has established an entitlement to damages through careful and thorough preparation of a case that required attention to detail. T he plaintiff would be put to the extra , not insubstantial , costs of assessment were I to make a standard costs order . Responsibility for the costs incurred by the plaintiff has been demonstrated to rest entirely with the defendant. It seems to me hardly in the interest s of justice to increase the cost burden on the plaintiff through a formal assessment process in circumstances where the defendant has not engaged in this litigation and there is cause to suspect that he may be impecunious . The plaintiff in the affidavit of Ms Kim affirmed 11 March 2026 has provided a detailed assessment of the costs and disbursements claimed with evidence supporting the reasonableness of the amounts claimed. That assessment , which did not include the costs of the hearing before me , comes to a total of $66,528.97. Mr Chiam conceded some discount was required to take into account the solicitor/client component of costs that may not be recovered on assessment. He suggested a discount of 30% and rounding down to $45,000 in total for the purpose of a gross sum costs order. That is a reasonable position to take and accords with my view. Orders F or those reasons I make the following O rders : Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $20 2,8 2 0.48 including pre - judgment interest. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff ’ s costs assessed on a gross sum basis in the amount of $45,000. ********** Endnote 1. See Sneddon v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 351 at [153]. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 May 2026