Construction Law Review

Construction Law Review – June

Please refer below to our Construction Law Review, selected from AR Conolly’s Daily Bulletins covering Insurance, Banking, Construction & Government.

Aurora Construction Materials Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority [2018] VSCA 165
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Maxwell P; Tate & Kaye JJA
Occupational health and safety – workplace accident – respondent commenced ‘further investigation’ of accident in which truck tipped, seriously injuring driver – respondent issued notice in respect of ‘power to obtain information’ to each of first and second applicants under s9(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) – applicants did not comply with notices – Victorian WorkCover Authority successfully prosecuted applicants in Magistrates’ Court – applicants appealed, contending notices were invalid or that they had excuse for non-compliance – trial judge dismissed appeal – applicants sought to appeal concerning notices’ validity – held: no error in trial judge’s conclusion that the notices were valid – appeal dismissed.
Aurora Construction

Sader v Langham [2018] NSWSC 727
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Darke J
Land law – easements – plaintiffs owned property with benefit of easements burdening defendants’ properties – plaintiffs contended that works first defendant constructed on rights of way were ’substantial interference’ with plaintiffs’ rights – plaintiffs sought damages, contending works had ’significantly diminished’ their land’s value – construction of easements – weight to be given to valuer’s opinion – held: claim for damages not established – statement of claim dismissed.
View Decision


Civil and Allied Technical Construction Pty Ltd v A1 Quality Concrete Tanks Pty Ltd [2018] VSCA 157
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Whelan, Santamaria & McLeish JJA
Contract – illegality – applicant was construction contractor – respondent company constructed concrete tanks – applicant negotiated with respondent with view to engaging it as subcontractor – applicant did not proceed – dispute arose as to whether there was a contract repudiated by applicant – County Court found there was ‘concluded contract’ and applicant had repudiated it – appeal from judgment dismissed – damages assessed – judgment given respondent’s favour for the sum of $266,863.36 – applicant sought to appeal on basis of alleged illegality of respondent’s ‘intended mode of performance’ of contract, and on ground concerning primary judge’s finding that respondent would have profited if contract not repudiated – held: leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed.
Civil and Allied Technical Construction

Brighton Australia Pty Ltd v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 246
Supreme Court of Victoria
Riordan J
Consumer law – building and construction – plaintiff claimed it entered subcontracts concerning building’s construction in reliance on defendant’s misleading or deceptive representations (Australian Consumer Law claim) – special referee found Australian Consumer Law claim should fail – whether special referee’s opinion should be adopted – whether non-disclosure claim within pleading’s ambit – whether hearing had been conducted on basis of non-disclosure claim – whether pleaded representations were made – whether representations misleading or deceptive – whether reliance established – whether clause of subcontracts barred the Australian Consumer Law claim – held: Court found that special referee’s opinion should be adopted – referee erred in finding plaintiff precluded from bringing Australian Consumer Law claim due to failure to give notice within time prescribed by subcontracts


 Stay Informed – Connect with us on LinkedIn