In Hale Corp Pty Ltd v Ng [2026] VSC 492, the Supreme Court of Victoria confirmed the established principles relating to calculating damages where a party has repudiated a contract.

Disputes arose in connection with a domestic building contract for the construction of a residential dwelling in Victoria. Following a show cause process, the owners purported to terminate the contract on the basis of various alleged breaches by the builder, Hale. Proceedings were commenced and Stynes J found (amongst other things) that:

• the owners were not entitled to terminate the contract;
• their conduct amounted to a repudiation of the contract;
• Hale had validly accepted the owner’s repudiation and terminated the contract at common law; and
• as a consequence, Hale was entitled to claim damages.

In making her findings, Stynes J reaffirmed the well-established principle that an award of damages should put an innocent party, so far as money can achieve it, in the same position as if the contract had been performed. Her Honour stated that in most cases, this amount will be equal to the contract price, less the value of any remaining works and amounts already paid.

In this regard, her Honour referred to and endorsed the principles in Keys Consulting Pty Ltd v CAT Enterprises Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 136 (see here), including that:

• In claims for damages, the plaintiff must prove both the fact of loss and the amount of that loss before they can recover substantial damages.
• Where some sort of actual loss has been established but cannot be particularly quantified, the court must estimate the damages according to evidence presented by the parties.
• The court recognises a distinction between a situation where damages cannot be assessed with certainty, and a situation where the plaintiff fails to produce evidence that was otherwise reasonably available. In the former case, the plaintiff maintains an entitlement to the claim for damages.
• A plaintiff must, with as much certainty and particularity as is reasonable in the circumstances, produce evidence relating to loss and damage claimed

After careful consideration of the parties’ expert evidence, the Court largely accepted the builder’s evidence regarding the quantum of the cost to complete the works. Taking into account other factors such as agreed variations, adjustments of time costs, payments made to the builder and the cost of rectifying defective work, the Court ultimately awarded the builder total damages of $697,805.38.

The decision can be found here.