Why this decision matters
Property buyers and developers should document agreed specifications, change control and credible evidence of projected income. The ruling is not an automatic guarantee of lost profits.
Facts and procedural context
The buyer alleged that important access and common-area features of a planned retail unit were changed, undermining its intended use. Claims included refund of the price, contractual penalties, financing costs and projected income.
Core judicial reasoning
The analysis turns on the distinction between contract breach and proof of the asserted future financial benefit, including causation and reliable supporting evidence. Different instances assessed the claims differently.
Practical implications
Property buyers and developers should document agreed specifications, change control and credible evidence of projected income. The ruling is not an automatic guarantee of lost profits.
Read the complete court interpretation
This independent editorial analysis does not replace the decision. Confirm the legislation applicable at the time and the current version.
Full interpretation (PDF)