SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

5
[13] The defendant’s main complaint about paragraphs 19 to 23 of the statement of claim is
that there is a failure to assert a causal nexus linking each alleged breach of contract in
paragraphs 14 to 18 of the statement of claim with the loss and damage flowing from each
breach.
[14] The plaintiffs rely on Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 to assert in response that
no further facts need be pleaded as the first plaintiff is entitled to insist upon performance
of the contract and adherence to the standards of construction required by the contract
and the loss for a failure to comply with those standards is the sum of money required to
make the work conform with the contractual standard.
[15] On the strike out application, the issue is whether, in respect of a cause of action for
damages for breach of a contract, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to plead any additional
material facts in the statement of claim showing the causal link between the acts
complained of and the loss claimed.
[16] Both parties’ submissions addressed authorities relevant to identifying the material facts
to be established to recover damages for breach of contract. It is appropriate therefore to
consider the effect of these authorities.
The relevant authorities
[17] In Bellgrove the defendant owner counterclaimed against the plaintiff builder for breach
of the building contract and claimed damages on the basis the house was worthless. The
trial judge had found that there had been “a very substantial departure from the
specifications” that resulted “in grave instability in the building”. The issue before the
trial judge was whether there was available for remedying the defect in the construction
of the foundations any practical solution other than the demolition of the building and its
re-erection in accordance with the plans and specifications. Judgment was given for the
defendant for the amount that represented the cost of demolishing and re-erecting the
building in accordance with the plans and specifications together with certain
consequential losses less the demolition value of the house and moneys unpaid under the
contract.
[18] The court observed at 617:
“In the present case, the respondent was entitled to have a building erected
upon her land in accordance with the contract and the plans and specifications
which formed part of it, and her damage is the loss which she has sustained
by the failure of the appellant to perform his obligation to her. This loss
cannot be measured by comparing the value of the building which has been
erected with the value it would have borne if erected in accordance with the
contract; her loss can, prima facie, be measured only by ascertaining the
amount required to rectify the defects complained of and so give to her the
equivalent of a building on her land which is substantially in accordance with
the contract.”
[19] It is apparent from the discussion by the court of the assessment of damages in Bellgrove
that it was a question of fact as to what work was necessary to remedy the defects in the