The Supreme Court held that the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the mandatory considerations under ss 42-46 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) when assessing a claim under the s 60 ACL due care and skill guarantee, and further erred in construing s 61(4) ACL as narrowing the scope of s 60 claims against architects. The Court also held that the Tribunal's suggestion that expert evidence was required to find for an applicant on professional standards complaints was contrary to the ACAT Act's express provisions on informality and access to justice. However, on a rehearing of the evidence, the Court reached the same result — the architectural failures (non-compliant garage door and solar encroachment) were readily fixable and did not individually or cumulatively constitute a 'major failure' under s 268 ACL justifying termination, and the design brief created a contractual obligation only to 'base' the design on the brief rather than achieve every listed item.
The full text is available to signed-in members.