Raymond v Lewis [2024] QCA 43
INTRODUCTION
The case of Raymond v Lewis recently heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal has revisited the extent that builders owe a duty of care to subsequent property purchasers. This case has significant implications for both builders and property buyers. The case involved a dispute between Ramy Raymond (the builder) and Belinda Sarah Lewis (the buyer) regarding building defects in a residential property. In the original District Court hearing, the trial judge ruled in favour of Lewis, however, Raymond had recently appealed the decision on the basis of challenging the trial judge’s original findings.
BACKGROUND
Lewis purchased the property at auction from Raymond and only discovered that there were subfloor related defects after having additional building and pest inspections undertaken after she had purchased the property. These defects supported her claim against Raymond.
THE ORIGINAL TRIAL
During the trial, Lewis presented building and pest inspection reports obtained from the vendor before purchasing the property, however, these reports did not mention the extent of inaccessible areas. Lewis did not obtain her own independent building and pest inspection reports prior to the auction and relied on the vendor’s reports instead.
The trial judge found that Raymond owed Lewis a duty of care based on the precedent set by the High Court in the earlier decision of Bryan v Maloney. The trial judge concluded that the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 did not replace the duty of care expressed in Bryan v Maloney. The judge also determined that Lewis’s vulnerability and reliance on Raymond were proven through her evidence. The trial judge ordered Raymond to pay damages for negligence.
THE APPEAL
Raymond appealed the trial judge’s decision, challenging the judge’s findings regarding Lewis’s vulnerability and reliance, as well as the applicability of the statutory insurance scheme under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991.
Raymond disputed the trial judge’s determination that he owed Lewis a duty of care. The appeal was allowed and the judgment from the original trial in favour of Lewis was set aside. The Court of Appeal concluded that Raymond did not owe a duty of care to Lewis as a subsequent purchaser of the property. Therefore, Raymond was not liable for the defects in the building because Lewis had an opportunity to conduct her own independent inspection prior to settlement. Lewis was ordered to pay Raymond’s costs.
IMPLICATIONS
This case highlights the importance of conducting thorough due diligence when purchasing a property, especially at auction. Property buyers should obtain their own independent reports to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the property’s condition. Further, builders, need to be aware of their duty of care to subsequent purchasers and ensure that they comply with the required standards.
CONCLUSION
The Raymond v Lewis case serves as a reminder of the duty of care owed by builders to subsequent property purchasers. It emphasizes the need for transparency and diligence in property transactions, with buyers taking proactive steps to assess the condition of the property they intend to purchase. This case will likely have a lasting impact on the legal landscape surrounding property transactions, including those completed by auction.
