Stoneman v Lyons [1975] HCA 59

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. McTiernan, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ. Stoneman v Lyons [1975] HCA 59

ORDER Appeal allowed with costs. Order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria set aside, and in lieu thereof order that (1) the appeal to that Court be allowed with costs, and (2) the judgment of Lush J. be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that there be judgment in the action with costs for the first-named defendant and for the third-named defendant.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Dec. 17 Barwick C.J.

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this appeal by my brother Mason. I agree entirely with what he has written and with the conclusion which he has reached. For the reasons my brother Mason expresses, I would allow the appeal.

McTiernan J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Pape, Menhennitt and Nelson JJ.) [15] dismissing an appeal from Lush J. The present respondents were the plaintiffs and the appellant was the defendant in the action. The respondents owned land in Echuca in Victoria, along whose western boundary stood the double brick cavity wall of the respondents' building. The appellant owned the land adjoining the western boundary of the respondents' land and intended to build a supermarket thereon. To that end he retained a firm of architects to design a building for him, and entered into a contract with a builder for the construction of the supermarket. The architects and the builder were defendants in the action but are not parties to this appeal. The architects designed the building and prepared drawings and specifications and the builder commenced work on the project.

1. [1974] V.R. 797.

A brief description of what happened thereafter is found in the reasons for judgment of the Full Court which I quote [1] :