[2026] SADC 4

Applicants: DANIEL ANDRIAS BECK & HAYLEY RENAY BECK In Person Counsel: MR R ROSS-SMITH - Solicitor: ST IVES LAW Respondent: MADISON HOMES BUILDING COMPANY PTY LTD (IN LIQ) No Attendance Hearing Date/s: 31/10/2024, 20/02/2025, 30/10/2025 File No/s: CIV-20-004378 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Civil) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment 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 in which it was generated. BECK & ANOR v MADISON HOMES BUILDING COMPANY PTY LTD (IN LIQ) [2026] SADC 4 Judgment of her Honour Judge Thomas 5 February 2026 CONTRACTS - BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS - PERFORMANCE OF WORK - REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT - DAMAGES The applicant owners and respondent builder were parties to a domestic building contract made in December 2014. In June 2018, the applicant owners terminated the contract and in October 2019 instituted this proceeding seeking damages for breach of contract, negligence and statutory compensation. In August 2024, default judgment was entered against the builder with damages to be assessed. At trial the applicants confined their claim to contractual damages and did not press any claim for pre-judgment interest or for the cost of rental accommodation. The date for assessing contractual damages and what constitutes adequate and fair compensation to the applicants in circumstances of escalating construction costs considered. Held: 1. The applicant owners are entitled to judgment against the respondent builder in the sum of $1,710,176.53 comprising remedial works costs incurred (assessed at $438,351.47) and completion costs (assessed at $1,546,514.06) less the unpaid contract sum ($274,689.00), all including GST. Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613; Clark v Macourt (2013) 253 CLR 1; European Bank Ltd v Evans (2010) 240 CLR 432; Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 154 ER 145; Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351; L Albert & Son v Armstrong Rubber Co (1949) 178 F. 2d 182; Nguyen v Luxury Design Homes Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 178; Radford v De Froberville [1978] 1 All ER 33; Robinson v Harman (1848) 154 ER 363; Stone v Chappel (2017) 128 SASR 165; Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272; The Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64; Wenham v Ella (1972) 127 CLR 454, considered. -- 1 of 13 -- -- 2 of 13 -- BECK & ANOR v MADISON HOMES BUILDING COMPANY PTY LTD (IN LIQ) [2026] SADC 4 ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES 1 On 7 August 2024, default judgment was entered under rule 146.1(1)(c) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) in favour of the applicant owners against the respondent builder, Madison Homes Building Company Pty Ltd (In Liquidation), with damages to be assessed.1 2 For the following reasons, the applicants are entitled to judgment in the sum of $1,710,176.53 including GST. The applicants are entitled to their costs of action on a standard costs basis, certified fit for counsel, subject to any relevant circumstance justifying a different award. 3 At trial, the applicants did not press their pleaded claim for pre-judgment interest.2 TRIAL ON DAMAGES 4 A liquidator was appointed to the respondent company on 15 October 2024. The liquidator gave his written consent to the applicants proceeding with a trial to assess damages3 and took no part in the trial. The trial for the assessment of damages took place on 31 October 2024, 20 February and 30 October 2025. 5 The applicants rely on affidavits of Mr Daniel Andrias Beck made on 21 October 20244 and 16 December 20255 and of Mr Paul Ryan Hocking made on 17 January 20256 and a book of documents.7 Mr Hocking is one of the directors of Hocking Enterprises Pty Ltd trading as Hocking Constructions (Hocking Constructions), with 15 years’ experience in the building industry. Mr Hocking’s affidavit addresses the completion of the remedial works (the Remedial Works) and his estimate of the costs for completing the remaining incomplete works (the Completion Works) based on current trade quotations. Mr Beck’s affidavits set out the factual basis of the applicants’ claimed losses. 6 The trial proceeded on the then current pleadings.8 FINDINGS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES 7 The applicants Mr Daniel Beck and his wife, Mrs Hayley Beck, are the registered proprietors of the land known as 30 Anderson Avenue, Port Noarlunga. From 2012 to 2014 they resided in a house on their land that was demolished to make 1 Record of Outcome (FDN 119). 2 20 February 2025, T29.24-.27. 3 Exhibit A4. 4 Exhibit A1. 5 Exhibit A6. 6 Exhibit A3. 7 Exhibit A2. 8 Amended Claim Revision 4 (FDN 60) (Claim); Revised Defence – Revision 1 (FDN 42). -- 3 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 2 way for a new house. In June 2014, the applicant owners engaged the respondent builder to construct the new house under a written building contract. 8 The initial building contract comprised a standard form Housing Industry Australia plain language residential building contract dated 1 July 2014;9 a Building Schedule dated 3 December 2013; a Progress Payments Schedule dated 4 July 2016; footing and structural documentation and calculations prepared by structural engineers JDR#1 Pty Ltd (the JDR documents); and Energy Efficiency Report Explanatory Information prepared by Star Rate Services dated November 2013 (the Energy Efficiency Report); plans and drawings prepared by Gerald Rankine & Associates approved by the local council, the City of Onkaparinga in granting development approval (council approved plans). 9 The contract sum was fixed at $998,873.00 including GST. 10 In about December 2014, the respondent builder engaged Spectra Building Designers to prepare new drawings (the Spectra drawings). 11 The scope of works under the contract (contract scope of works) was specified in the JDR documents, the Energy Efficiency Report, the council approved plans as amended by the Spectra drawings. 12 The owners’ new house that was to be constructed by the builder was a complex structure. It was a multi-storeyed, multi-tiered building comprising a corrugated sheet roof on a conventionally pitched timber framework incorporating structural steelwork. Constructed over four levels, it presented to the street as two levels. It was to be clad in Hebel panelling and rendered with stonework features. The concrete works were extensive, comprising suspended slabs. Other features included large glass windows of irregular shapes; large bi-fold opening doors; an inground concrete swimming pool; large, elevated deck areas and an outdoor fireplace arrangement. 13 Under the contract, the completion date was 29 July 2017 (18 months from the slab pour on 29 January 2016). 14 The builder did not complete the works under the contract before the completion date. 15 In December 2017, the owners engaged Mr Chris Short of Blue Chip Building Consultants to inspect and report on the status of the incomplete works. Mr Short identified a number of defects with the roof framing, departures from orthodox carpentry practices and the installation of cranked steel beams. Following Mr Short’s recommendation that a specialist timber framing structural engineer be engaged, the owners engaged Mr Peter Graham of Conceptio Pty Ltd to inspect and report on matters within his area of speciality. 9 Exhibit A7. -- 4 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 3 16 Mr Short inspected the works on 12 and 19 December 2017, 13 February 2018 and 21 May 2019. Mr Graham inspected the works on 19 December 2017 and 1 June 2018. Between them, these independent experts prepared six comprehensive reports (the Blue Chip and Conceptio reports) that identify various defects and incomplete works undertaken by the builder.10 17 Mr Short has prepared two reports. 18 The first report is dated 24 February 2018. It describes the status of the completed works as inspected and identifies defects and incomplete work (the Short Report of February 2018).11 19 Mr Short’s second report dated 6 June 2019 and was prepared following a further inspection of the incomplete works on 19 May 2019. It further describes the status of the completed works and identifies defects and incomplete work at the time of his last inspection (the Short Report of June 2019).12 20 Mr Graham has prepared four reports. 21 The first report is dated 20 February 2018 and was prepared following his inspection of the timber walls and roof frame on 19 December 2017. It highlights extensive concerns with this part of the works from an engineering point of view (44 items) and is critical of the inadequate engineering documentation relied on by the builder in terms of scant detail, poor coordination with the structural steel and general building geometry. In Mr Graham’s opinion the carpentry work is of low quality and the builder has progressed construction without adequate design details, resulting in many mistakes.13 22 Mr Graham’s second report is dated 13 July 2018 and was prepared following his second inspection of the timber walls and roof frame on 1 June 2018 for the purpose of reviewing the rectification works completed by the builder identified in the first Conceptio report. Mr Graham opines that even with reasonable guidance, the respondent builder has not completed a significant number of the 44 items identified in the first Conceptio report satisfactorily or at all. Mr Graham reiterates his earlier opinion that the time taken to get to this stage of construction (close to four years) is lengthy and expresses his lack of confidence in the builder’s ability to complete the works.14 23 Mr Graham’s third report is dated 12 December 2018 and was prepared for the purpose of summarising the status of the defects identified to date, despite the builder’s attempted remediation works.15 10 Exhibit A2, Part 3. 11 Exhibit A2.3.34-48. 12 Exhibit A2.3.49-61. 13 Exhibit A2.3.62-68. 14 Exhibit A2.3.69-117. 15 Exhibit A2.3.118-214. -- 5 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 4 24 Mr Graham’s fourth report is dated 12 February 2019 and was prepared to provide detailed solutions for each outstanding defect in the timber walls and roof frame of the incomplete works (the Conceptio Rectification/Dilapidation Report).16 25 On 19 June 2018, the owners terminated the building contract and instituted this proceeding on 19 October 2020 claiming damages for breach of contract, negligence and breach of statutory duty. PRINCIPLES The Ruling Principle - Contract 26 At trial, the applicants only pressed their claim for damages for breach of contract, abandoning their claim in tort.17 27 In assessing damages for breach of contract the ‘ruling principle’ is that the award should put the injured party, so far as money can do it, in the same situation as if the contract had been performed as promised.18 Incontrovertibly, the purpose of the award of damages is compensatory. 28 The corollary of the ‘ruling principle’ in Robinson v Harman19 is that an award of damages for breach of contract should not put the injured party in a superior position than they would have been had the contract been performed.20 Therefore, where an injured party claims damages for a loss caused by a breach of contract, any benefit received by the promisee must be taken into account in determining the extent of their loss. For example, an owner will have to give credit for what they would have had to pay had the building contract been properly performed.21 29 There are qualifications to the ‘ruling principle’. One is that the law does not compensate an injured party for the non-fulfilment of an expectation that could not reasonably be supposed to have been within the contemplation of the other party when they made their contract as the probable result of breach.22 Another is that damages which are too remote are not recoverable. 16 Exhibit A2.3.215-339. 17 30 October 2025 T2.34-.3.8. 18 Robinson v Harman (1848) 154 ER 363 at 365; Wenham v Ella (1972) 127 CLR 454 at 460, 471; Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272 at 286 [13]; Clark v Macourt (2013) 253 CLR 1 at [7], [26], [60] and [106]. 19 (1848) 154 ER 363. 20 The Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 (Amann Aviation) at 82 citing L Albert & Son v Armstrong Rubber Co (1949) 178 F. 2d 182 at 189; and also 136, 155 and 163. 21 Nguyen v Luxury Design Homes Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 178 at [51]-[54]. 22 European Bank Ltd v Evans (2010) 240 CLR 432 at 438 [12]-[13], referring to Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 154 ER 145 at 151. -- 6 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 5 Onus of Proof 30 The injured party bears the onus of establishing that there has been actual loss, that the breach of contract has caused it, that the loss was not too remote and the measure to be awarded.23 Date for Assessment of Damages 31 The general, although not universal, rule is that damages in contract are assessed at the date of breach or when the cause of action arises.24 They are assessed on a “once and for all basis”.25 The rule is motivated by concerns about mitigation and, in part by notions of fairness to the defaulting party.26 In Clark v Macourt, Keane J said:27 The value to be paid in accordance with the ruling principle is assessed at the date of breach of contract, not as a matter of discretion, but as an integral aspect of the principle, which is concerned to give the purchaser the economic value of the performance of the contract at the time that performance was promised. In this way, the measure of damages captures for the purchaser the benefit of the bargain and so compensates the purchaser for the loss of that benefit. (Citation omitted) 32 The rule that damages are assessed at the time of breach or when the cause of action arises is not absolute. The Court will depart from it to avoid injustice.28 33 In building cases, the date for assessment of damages for non-compliant work is often complicated by disputes about whether there is a defect at all, and if there is, what remedial works are required. The authorities show the flexibility of the general rule depends on the circumstances as to what is adequate and fair compensation in any case. In some cases, damages are assessed at the date of breach, in others at later dates or at trial. 34 As a general principle, the time for assessing contractual conformity is at practical completion when the works are substantially complete and handed over by a builder to an owner. Works that conform to the contractual specification when built but not at practical completion constitute defective works, just as the manifestation of latent defects in previously conforming works do. 35 The onus lies on the applicant owners as the wronged parties to establish that departure from the general rule of assessing damages is necessary to do justice between the parties in terms of adequately and fairly compensating the applicant 23 Amann Aviation at 80, 99, 118 and 137. 24 Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351 at 356 per Mason CJ (Johnson). 25 Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 at 620 (Bellgrove). 26 Ibid at 357-358. 27 (2013) 253 CLR 1 at [109] citing Johnson at 355-356. 28 Johnson at 355-356, 367 and 386-387. -- 7 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 6 owners for the loss and damage suffered by reason of the respondent builder’s breach of contract in carrying out defective and incomplete works. Measure of Damages 36 The prima facie measure of damages recoverable by the owners for breach of the building contract for defective and incomplete works is the cost of making the works conform to the contract, together with any consequential loss. The availability of this measure of damages reflects the owners’ performance interest, even where that interest is “some subjective aesthetic or eccentric benefit bargained for the [owner] rather than some objective financial benefit”.29 Therefore, where there is defective works, an owner is not confined to compensation for the loss of the objective financial or economic benefits of performance. 37 The general principle is subject to the qualification that the undertaking of the work necessary to achieve conformity must be a reasonable course to adopt.30 What remedial work is necessary and reasonable in any particular case is a question of fact.31 38 This prima face measure assumes the owners paid the full contract price for the non-conforming works. In circumstances where they have not paid the contract price in full or at all, in assessing damages, account is taken of the expense the owners have saved by not paying the builder what they would have paid if the contract had been performed. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES 39 In formulating their claim for damages of $1,795,904.00, the applicants ultimately pressed three heads of loss at trial (all including GST):32 • Remedial costs incurred of $438,351.47 • Additional costs to complete the works of $1,546,514.06 • Overpayment of progress claims of $266,448.0033 29 Stone v Chappel (2017) 128 SASR 165 at [200] per Doyle J. 30 Bellgrove at 617-618. 31 Ibid at 619. 32 20 February 2025, T20.1-.21.8. 33 See [56] below; calculated as amount paid ($724,184.00) less the completed value as assessed by Mr Short ($457,736.00). -- 8 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 7 At trial, the applicants abandoned their claim for costs of rental accommodation.34 Remedial Costs Incurred Conclusion 40 For the following reasons, I am satisfied the owners have proven that the total costs incurred in carrying out the Remedial Works claimed at trial are $438,351.47 including GST. Loss Claimed 41 The owners’ pleaded claim for estimated remedial costs of $210,293.0035 was formulated in July 2019 on the basis of the estimate made in the Short Report of July 2019.36 42 At trial, the owners claimed $438,351.47 including GST37 for the actual costs incurred for the Remedial Works carried out in 2023 and 2024. This total is the sum of paid invoices issued by Hocking Constructions, Amaar Property Pty Ltd (Amaar) and Roof & Render SA Pty Ltd (Roof & Render). 43 This represents an escalation in construction costs of more than double compared to Mr Short’s estimate for 11% between 2014 and 2019.38 44 Mr Hocking gave evidence about the dramatic escalation in construction costs since 2019.39 I accept Mr Hocking’s evidence that the costs incurred to carry out the Remedial Works are the best trade prices he was able to obtain and that they represent current market prices.40 The escalation in construction costs since COVID-19 is notorious as is the difficulty in obtaining the best trade prices to remedy partially complete and defective building works undertaken by another builder many years later. Hocking Constructions - $387,351.97 including GST 45 The owners rely on the filed Scott Schedule41 detailing 160 defects identified and cross-referenced to the Blue Chip and Conceptio reports as the scope of the Remedial Works.42 Having regard to the contract, the Blue Chip and Conceptio reports and the Scott Schedule, I am satisfied that the scope of the Remedial Works carried out only concerns defects in the works carried out by the builder. 34 30 October 2025, T5.14. 35 Claim [32.B.]. 36 Exhibit A2.4.340-387. 37 There is a trivial arithmetic error of $0.02 made in totalling the component amounts and a typographical error of $200.00 in the total of Hocking Constructions’ invoices in Exhibit A1 [20]. 38 FDN 100; Exhibit A2.4.363. 39 Exhibit A3 [37]. 40 Ibid [38]-[40]. 41 Exhibit A2.2. 42 Exhibit A2.2; Exhibit A2.3. -- 9 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 8 46 The owners engaged Hocking Constructions to undertake the Remedial Works under a written contract signed 28 June 2023.43 The contract is the HIA SA Cost Plus Building Contract form for a price of cost plus 15%. In the circumstances of undertaking remedial works, a cost plus 15% contract is reasonable. 47 Hocking Constructions documented completion of the Remedial Works in two reports dated 22 May 2024. They are both comprehensive and identify the Remedial Works by reference to the item numbers in the Scott Schedule and therefore the relevant Blue Chip or Conceptio reports. One titled “Completed Works Report” identifies the completed Remedial Works.44 The other titled “Pending Works Report” identifies 19 items that could not be properly completed as it would be out of sequence for the stage that the house was at.45 These items were deferred to be completed as part of the outstanding Completion Works.46 48 The total cost of the Remedial Works completed by Hocking Constructions of $387,351.97 is proven by Mr Hocking’s evidence and the tax invoices issued by Hocking Constructions to the owners in evidence.47 Amaar – $40,999.50 including GST 49 The owners engaged Amaar in 2022 to undertake various works preparatory to undertaking the required Remedial Works at a total cost of $40,999.50 including GST. Amaar completed a small component of the work but was unable to carry out all the remedial works due to personal circumstances through no fault of the owners. 50 Mr Hocking reviewed the works carried out by Amaar and their invoiced charges and disbursements as evidenced in the expenditure cost summary and various tax invoices.48 I accept his evidence that Hocking Constructions took the benefit of these works in carrying out the Remedial Works and that they were necessary because if they had not been carried out by Amaar, Hocking Constructions would have had to arrange for this pre-construction work to be done and paid for by the owners.49 I also accept Mr Hocking’s evidence that Hocking Constructions would have charged about the same as Amaar did.50 I am satisfied that this work was required for the works to conform with the contract and its cost is reasonable as a cost of the Remedial Works. 43 Exhibit PRH-01 to Exhibit A3. 44 Exhibit PRH-03 to Exhibit A3. 45 Exhibit PRH-02 to Exhibit A3; Exhibit A3 [9].. 46 Exhibit PRH-02 to Exhibit A3. 47 Exhibit A3 [11]-[13]. 48 Ibid [14]-[24]. 49 Ibid [23]. 50 Ibid [24]. -- 10 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 9 Roof & Render - $10,000.00 including GST 51 Mr Beck has given evidence that part of the Remedial Works were carried out by Roof & Render at a cost of $10,000.00.51 Mr Beck refers to the scope of the Remedial Works as being described in the 160 Scott Schedule items without greater particularity.52 It is clear however that the render works comprise item 84 of the Scott Schedule and reference the cracked render identified by Mr Short as item 10 in the Short Report of February 2018.53 I am satisfied that this work was also required for the works to conform with the contract and its cost is recoverable as a cost of the Remedial Works. Additional Completion Costs Conclusion 52 For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the cost of carrying out the Completion Works is $1,546,514.06 including GST. Loss Claimed 53 The owners’ pleaded claim for additional completion costs of $696,767.0054 was formulated on the basis of an estimate made in the Short Report of July 2019.55 In October 2024, the owners’ formulated claim for additional completion costs was $1,090.904.55 including GST.56 54 At trial, the owners claimed higher completion costs of $1,546,514.06 including GST based on Mr Hocking’s evidence at trial of the likely cost. The owners contend it is reasonable for the respondent builder to be liable for the significant escalation in building costs in the circumstances of this case. Date for Assessment of Damages 55 I am satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case to assess damages for the additional completion works at the date of trial and not at an earlier date such as the date of termination of the Madison Homes contract. 56 The quantum is significant and it is reasonable for the owners to have deferred carrying out the Completion Works until after judgment. The owners have already paid or incurred more than the entire Madison Homes contract price for a substantially incomplete house. They paid $724,184.00 or 72.5% of the Madison Homes contract sum57 whilst it was on foot for only $457,736.00 or approximately 46% of the contract scope of works on Mr Short’s estimate. They have also paid a 51 Exhibit A1 [20]. 52 Ibid [14]. 53 Exhibit A2.3.44. 54 Claim [32.B.]. 55 Exhibit A2.4.340-387. 56 Exhibit A1 at [30]-[34]. 57 $724,184 of $998,873. -- 11 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 10 significant amount to have Hocking Constructions and others complete the Remedial Works at a total cost of $438,351.47. 57 Before this proceeding was instituted, the respondent builder was given significant opportunity and time to remedy the defects in the works identified by Messrs Short and Graham when completion of the works was already much delayed. The builder failed to remedy the defects in its works or complete the works under the contract adequately or at all by June 2018 when the contract was terminated. 58 The owners then took steps to identify the scope of the Remedial Works and Completion Works and likely costs. Independent expert Mr Short was retained and prepared a status costing report dated 8 November 201858 and a remedial scope costing and completion report dated 8 July 2019.59 Mr Graham prepared the Conceptio Rectification/Dilapidation Report dated 12 February 2019.60 59 This proceeding commenced on 19 October 2020 and was defended by the respondent on the basis that any liability was denied. Having regard to the Court’s copy of record, it is apparent that the delays in the interlocutory steps arose primarily from the respondent builder’s financial difficulties and applications to be represented by its director and then to join third parties. There is no injustice “if the result of inflation is to increase the pecuniary amount of the [respondent’s] ultimate liability”61 where there has been no unnecessary delay in the prosecution of the proceeding by the applicants. Hocking Constructions’ Estimate 60 The Completion Works have not been carried out. The owners contend they are unable to fund the completion of the works due to lack of finances. I accept Mr Beck’s evidence that this is the case.62 61 Mr Hocking sets out in his evidence the documents he was provided that he has treated as specifying the scope of the Completion Works. In addition to the expert reports already referred to in relation to the scope of the Remedial Works, Mr Hocking identifies Architects Ink Interior Design drawings dated 23 October 2014, a Schedule of Finishes and updated construction and engineering drawings taking account of the completed Remedial Works that required re-approval because the development approval had lapsed.63 62 To cost the Completion Works, Mr Hocking sought quotations from the various trades which he lists in a breakdown by trade totalling $1,587,986.51 including GST.64 In seeking trade tenders, Mr Hocking’s evidence was that he reviewed the 58 Exhibit A2.4.340-387. 59 Exhibit A2.4.388-428. 60 Exhibit A2.3.215-339. 61 Radford v De Froberville [1978] 1 All ER 33 at 56-97. 62 Exhibit A6. 63 Exhibit A3 [27]. 64 Ibid 351. -- 12 of 13 -- [2026] SADC 4 11 scope of works described in the Short Report of July 2019 and save for one item, they were consistent in his opinion. That one item (an outdoor spa) was not in the scope of works under the Madison Homes contract. After deduction of that item ($41,472.45 including margin and GST), 65 Mr Hocking’s estimate of the costs of carrying out the Completion Works was $1,546,514.06 including GST and 15% margin. 63 I am satisfied that a cost plus 15% arrangement is reasonable for carrying out the Completion Works in the proven circumstances for the reasons already stated. Total Remedial and Completion Costs 64 For the reasons set out above, the costs of making the works conform to the contract should be assessed at $1,984,865.53, being the sum of the costs already incurred for the Remedial Works ($438,351.47) and the additional completion costs for carrying out the Completion Works ($1,546,514.06), all including GST. Total Damages Assessment 65 The owners formulated their claim as the sum of the costs of the Remedial Works and the Completion Works, plus the amount they claim they overpaid for the completed works.66 This formulation on the findings I have made yields total damages of $1,710.176.53 including GST. 66 The more straightforward way to formulate the measure of the owners’ loss and damage is to deduct from the proven total remedial and completion costs ($1,984,865.53) the cost saving to the owners of the unpaid contract sum ($274,689.00).67 This yields the same result, bearing in mind that the prima facie measure of the owners’ loss is the cost of making the works conform to the contract in circumstances where the owners had paid $724,184.00 of the contract sum. Total Remedial and Completion Costs $1,984,865.53 Credit of unpaid Madison Homes contract sum ($274,689.00) Total Loss and Damage $1,710,176.53 65 Ibid 352. 66 As assessed by Mr Short: $266,448.00 being the amount paid ($724,184.00) less completed value ($457,736.00). 67 Contract sum ($988,873.00) less amount paid ($724,184.00). See Claim [32.C]. -- 13 of 13 --