01 Oct Construction Law Review
Construction Law Review
Please refer below to our Construction Law Review, selected from AR Conolly’s Daily Bulletins covering Insurance, Banking, Construction & Government.
Paskins v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] QSC 190
Supreme Court of Queensland
McMeekin J
Negligence – employer’s duty of care – vicarious liability – non-delegable duty of care – labour hire contract – plaintiff claimed damages for injuries suffered in course of employment with first defendant while operating haul truck at mine which first defendant operated – plaintiff alleged second defendant’s employee caused his injuries – labour of second defendant’s employee had been hired to first defendant under contract between second defendant and third party – Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) – Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) – Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) – Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – held: incident occurred due to negligence of second defendant’s employee – both first and second defendant liable for negligence of second defendant’s employee – no contributory negligence – second respondent was required under its contract with third party to indemnify first defendant for its liability in relation to plaintiff – judgment for plaintiff against first defendant in sum of $709,408.26 – judgment for plaintiff against second defendant in sum of $966,991.38.
Paskins
Supreme Court of Queensland
McMeekin J
Negligence – employer’s duty of care – vicarious liability – non-delegable duty of care – labour hire contract – plaintiff claimed damages for injuries suffered in course of employment with first defendant while operating haul truck at mine which first defendant operated – plaintiff alleged second defendant’s employee caused his injuries – labour of second defendant’s employee had been hired to first defendant under contract between second defendant and third party – Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) – Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Qld) – Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth) – Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – held: incident occurred due to negligence of second defendant’s employee – both first and second defendant liable for negligence of second defendant’s employee – no contributory negligence – second respondent was required under its contract with third party to indemnify first defendant for its liability in relation to plaintiff – judgment for plaintiff against first defendant in sum of $709,408.26 – judgment for plaintiff against second defendant in sum of $966,991.38.
Paskins
MT Hojgaard A/S v E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd & Anor [2017] UKSC 59
United Kingdom Supreme Court
Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge
Contract – ‘design and build’ contract – proceedings arising from failure of foundation structures of two off shore wind farms – parties disputed who bore remedial costs – appellants were two companies in group (E.ON) – MTH were successful bidders on appellants’ tender documents, which included “Technical Requirements” stating the requirements which were to be taken into account by MTH – Technical Requirements required that foundations be in accordance with document (J101) – MTH prepared tender in accordance with Technical Requirements and J101 – J101 affected by error which meant foundation structures’ strength overestimated – parties entered contract – contract stated MTH should carry out work “fit for purpose” including adherence to Technical Requirements – whether paragraphs of Technical Requirements infringed – construction of Technical Requirements – “The design of the foundations shall ensure a lifetime of twenty years in every aspect without planned replacement” – whether inconsistency between paragraphs and other provisions such as adherence to J101 – held: MTH breached Technical Requirements – foundations did not have a twenty year life time – foundations’ design was not fit to ensure twenty year life time – no different construction required by reference to J101 – MTH liable – appeal allowed.
MT Hojgaard
United Kingdom Supreme Court
Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge
Contract – ‘design and build’ contract – proceedings arising from failure of foundation structures of two off shore wind farms – parties disputed who bore remedial costs – appellants were two companies in group (E.ON) – MTH were successful bidders on appellants’ tender documents, which included “Technical Requirements” stating the requirements which were to be taken into account by MTH – Technical Requirements required that foundations be in accordance with document (J101) – MTH prepared tender in accordance with Technical Requirements and J101 – J101 affected by error which meant foundation structures’ strength overestimated – parties entered contract – contract stated MTH should carry out work “fit for purpose” including adherence to Technical Requirements – whether paragraphs of Technical Requirements infringed – construction of Technical Requirements – “The design of the foundations shall ensure a lifetime of twenty years in every aspect without planned replacement” – whether inconsistency between paragraphs and other provisions such as adherence to J101 – held: MTH breached Technical Requirements – foundations did not have a twenty year life time – foundations’ design was not fit to ensure twenty year life time – no different construction required by reference to J101 – MTH liable – appeal allowed.
MT Hojgaard
Buildum Construction Pty Ltd v Pile & Bucket Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1260
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Parker J
Contract – settlement agreement – security of payments – first defendant made claim under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) for progress payment under subcontract with plaintiff – first defendant obtained adjudication determination, registered adjudication certificate and issued garnishee notices – plaintiff challenged adjudication determination – parties exchanged drafts of unsigned deed of settlement – plaintiff contended ‘binding and enforceable settlement agreement was reached’ – whether execution of deed was ‘essential element’ of agreement – s73 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – held: parties reached a binding and enforceable agreement – plaintiff entitled to specific performance of agreement.
View Decision
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Parker J
Contract – settlement agreement – security of payments – first defendant made claim under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) for progress payment under subcontract with plaintiff – first defendant obtained adjudication determination, registered adjudication certificate and issued garnishee notices – plaintiff challenged adjudication determination – parties exchanged drafts of unsigned deed of settlement – plaintiff contended ‘binding and enforceable settlement agreement was reached’ – whether execution of deed was ‘essential element’ of agreement – s73 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) – held: parties reached a binding and enforceable agreement – plaintiff entitled to specific performance of agreement.
View Decision
R Developments Pty Ltd v Forth [2017] ACTCA 38
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Refshauge, Burns & Collier JJ
Building contract – standard form building contract – agreement for construction of residence by appellant (builder) for respondents (owners) – primary judge found builder was not entitled to terminate contract for owners’ failure to comply with requirement to supply evidence of capacity to pay – primary judge also found owners failed to prove entitlement to anything more than nominal damages for builder’s wrongful repudiation – builder appealed – construction of contract – held: no error in primary judge’s conclusion concerning effect and nature of clauses of contract – grounds of appeal unsubstantiated – appeal dismissed.
R Developments
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Refshauge, Burns & Collier JJ
Building contract – standard form building contract – agreement for construction of residence by appellant (builder) for respondents (owners) – primary judge found builder was not entitled to terminate contract for owners’ failure to comply with requirement to supply evidence of capacity to pay – primary judge also found owners failed to prove entitlement to anything more than nominal damages for builder’s wrongful repudiation – builder appealed – construction of contract – held: no error in primary judge’s conclusion concerning effect and nature of clauses of contract – grounds of appeal unsubstantiated – appeal dismissed.
R Developments
Holiday Trading and After-Hours Information
CRM Brokers wishes you and your family a very Merry Christmas and we look forwar...
04 November, 2024The Importance of Police Reference Numbers for Claims
At CRM Brokers, we are committed to making our client’s claims experience ...
30 October, 2024Are 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, 2024