31 Mar Construction Law Review
Construction Law Review – March
Please refer below to our Construction Law Review, selected from AR Conolly’s Daily Bulletins covering Insurance, Banking, Construction & Government.
Cobar Shire Council v Castlereagh Construction Group Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 86
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Stevenson J
Security of payments – funds in Court – costs – plaintiff contracted with first defendant for construction of fire station – plaintiff sought to quash adjudicator’s determination under s22 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) – Bergin CJ in Eq ordered first defendant be restrained from enforcing judgment on condition of plaintiff’s payment of amount to first defendant and payment of amount into Court – plaintiff sought to discontinue proceedings – proceedings dismissed – issues concerned what should happen to funds in Court and whether there should be special costs order due to first defendant’s service of Calderbank on plaintiff – held: Court ordered that funds in Court be paid out to plaintiff – it was not unreasonable for plaintiff not to accept first defendant’s offer – plaintiff to pay first defendant’s costs on ordinary basis.
Cobar
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Stevenson J
Security of payments – funds in Court – costs – plaintiff contracted with first defendant for construction of fire station – plaintiff sought to quash adjudicator’s determination under s22 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) – Bergin CJ in Eq ordered first defendant be restrained from enforcing judgment on condition of plaintiff’s payment of amount to first defendant and payment of amount into Court – plaintiff sought to discontinue proceedings – proceedings dismissed – issues concerned what should happen to funds in Court and whether there should be special costs order due to first defendant’s service of Calderbank on plaintiff – held: Court ordered that funds in Court be paid out to plaintiff – it was not unreasonable for plaintiff not to accept first defendant’s offer – plaintiff to pay first defendant’s costs on ordinary basis.
Cobar
CA & CA Ballan Pty Ltd v Oliver Hume (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] VSCA 11
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Redlich, Tate and Ferguson JJA
Equitable remedies – contract – respondent and related company were real estate agents – appellant and two other companies were property developers – agents entered sales authorities with each of developers – agents alleged they were owed more commission – developers contended agents not entitled to commission because sales authorities did not comply with s49A(1) Estate Agents Act 1980 (Vic) – developers claimed sales authorities did not include approved form of rebate statement and that some did not include dollar amount for commission – agents amended pleadings to seek relief by rectification of sales authorities – developers successfully sought strike out of rectification pleading – agents given right to replead – developers appealed against permission to replead – parties obtained orders that two questions be reserved for Court’s consideration as to whether paragraphs of statements of claim should be struck out with no leave to replead – reserved questions answered in the negative – appeal dismissed.
CA & CA Ballan
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Redlich, Tate and Ferguson JJA
Equitable remedies – contract – respondent and related company were real estate agents – appellant and two other companies were property developers – agents entered sales authorities with each of developers – agents alleged they were owed more commission – developers contended agents not entitled to commission because sales authorities did not comply with s49A(1) Estate Agents Act 1980 (Vic) – developers claimed sales authorities did not include approved form of rebate statement and that some did not include dollar amount for commission – agents amended pleadings to seek relief by rectification of sales authorities – developers successfully sought strike out of rectification pleading – agents given right to replead – developers appealed against permission to replead – parties obtained orders that two questions be reserved for Court’s consideration as to whether paragraphs of statements of claim should be struck out with no leave to replead – reserved questions answered in the negative – appeal dismissed.
CA & CA Ballan
Ellis’s Town House Pty Ltd v Botan Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 20
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Gleeson, Leeming & Simpson JJA
Leases and tenancies – damages – respondent lessee sued applicant lessor for breach of covenants as lessor to paint premises and maintain them – applicant carried out some painting and repair work after proceedings commenced – at time of hearing, respondent had not incurred expenditure – respondent sought damages for breach of painting covenant and repair covenant – there was dispute concerning assessment of damages – amount in issue less than threshold of $100,000 – applicant sought to appeal concerning issue whether lessee could recover damages on ‘cost of cure’ basis even though it had not yet incurred costs – held: no error in approach to award of damages – proposed appeal did not raise issue of principle – decision below did not involve injustice – ‘ruling principle’ governing damages meant respondent entitled to amount to put it in position it would have been in if lessor performed the covenants – the fact that respondent had not incurred this expense no answer to its claim – leave to appeal refused.
Ellis’s
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Gleeson, Leeming & Simpson JJA
Leases and tenancies – damages – respondent lessee sued applicant lessor for breach of covenants as lessor to paint premises and maintain them – applicant carried out some painting and repair work after proceedings commenced – at time of hearing, respondent had not incurred expenditure – respondent sought damages for breach of painting covenant and repair covenant – there was dispute concerning assessment of damages – amount in issue less than threshold of $100,000 – applicant sought to appeal concerning issue whether lessee could recover damages on ‘cost of cure’ basis even though it had not yet incurred costs – held: no error in approach to award of damages – proposed appeal did not raise issue of principle – decision below did not involve injustice – ‘ruling principle’ governing damages meant respondent entitled to amount to put it in position it would have been in if lessor performed the covenants – the fact that respondent had not incurred this expense no answer to its claim – leave to appeal refused.
Ellis’s
Woolcorp Pty Ltd v Rodger Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] VSCA 21
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Santamaria & Kyrou JJA; Elliot AJA
Contract – restitution – parties were property developers with interests in adjacent pieces of land under Council’s planning control – respondent constructed road as part of a subdivision on land in which it had interest – road benefited applicant – respondent sued applicant claiming they agreed it would contribute to construction’s cost or that applicant was obliged to contribute by restitution – trial judge found binding contract existed and awarded amount to respondent – judge also found respondent would have been entitled to same amount by its restitutionary claim if no contract – held: respondent did not have valid claim on basis either of contract or restitution – appeal allowed.
Woolcorp
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Santamaria & Kyrou JJA; Elliot AJA
Contract – restitution – parties were property developers with interests in adjacent pieces of land under Council’s planning control – respondent constructed road as part of a subdivision on land in which it had interest – road benefited applicant – respondent sued applicant claiming they agreed it would contribute to construction’s cost or that applicant was obliged to contribute by restitution – trial judge found binding contract existed and awarded amount to respondent – judge also found respondent would have been entitled to same amount by its restitutionary claim if no contract – held: respondent did not have valid claim on basis either of contract or restitution – appeal allowed.
Woolcorp
Are You Underinsured? An insight into how a claim could be affected
What is underinsurance? Underinsurance is a preventable but often devastating co...
27 August, 2024Celebrating Excellence at the 2024 Strata Community CHU Awards
Celebrating Excellence at the 2024 Strata Community CHU Awards The Strata Commun...
06 August, 2024Strata Insurance Insights: Why Insurers Are Keeping An Eye On Lithium-Ion Batteries
In recent years, Australia has experienced a surge in fires linked to lithium-io...
24 July, 2024Finalists Announced for the Strata Services Business Award
Finalists Announced for the Strata Services Business Award The independent judgi...
23 July, 2024