31 Oct Construction Law Review
Construction Law Review – October
Please refer below to our Construction Law Review, selected from AR Conolly’s Daily Bulletins covering Insurance, Banking, Construction & Government.
Freeman v Londish [2018] NSWSC 1425
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Stevenson J
Contract – parties entered ‘oral joint venture agreement’ to develop land into a retirement village – parties had falling out – parties each alleged the other had repudiated the agreement – plaintiff sought to recover amount he had advanced – funding obligations under agreement – ‘disputed implied terms’ – whether repudiation of agreement – whether acceptance of repudiation – held: defendant had repudiated agreement – plaintiff had accepted defendant’s repudiation – plaintiff entitled to recover amount advanced – judgment for plaintiff.
View Decision
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Stevenson J
Contract – parties entered ‘oral joint venture agreement’ to develop land into a retirement village – parties had falling out – parties each alleged the other had repudiated the agreement – plaintiff sought to recover amount he had advanced – funding obligations under agreement – ‘disputed implied terms’ – whether repudiation of agreement – whether acceptance of repudiation – held: defendant had repudiated agreement – plaintiff had accepted defendant’s repudiation – plaintiff entitled to recover amount advanced – judgment for plaintiff.
View Decision
Carr v Miller [2018] NSWSC 1424
Supreme Court of New South Wales
McDougall J
Building and construction – contract – third defendant was proprietor of residence – third defendant arranged with second defendant to undertake redevelopment – first defendant was builder – when works ‘substantially complete’, third defendant agreed to sell property to plaintiff – plaintiff contended she was ‘deceived into completing the contract’, claiming ‘false certificates’ were provided concerning compliance with development consent and Home Warranty Insurance – plaintiff claimed loss in sum of difference between purchase price and property’s ‘true value’ – plaintiff also contended building work done by second defendant or at his direction was defective – plaintiff, alternatively, claimed damages for defects – breach of contract claims – deceit claims – negligence claim – breach of statutory warranties claims – s92 Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – held: plaintiff succeeded on various claims.
View Decision
Supreme Court of New South Wales
McDougall J
Building and construction – contract – third defendant was proprietor of residence – third defendant arranged with second defendant to undertake redevelopment – first defendant was builder – when works ‘substantially complete’, third defendant agreed to sell property to plaintiff – plaintiff contended she was ‘deceived into completing the contract’, claiming ‘false certificates’ were provided concerning compliance with development consent and Home Warranty Insurance – plaintiff claimed loss in sum of difference between purchase price and property’s ‘true value’ – plaintiff also contended building work done by second defendant or at his direction was defective – plaintiff, alternatively, claimed damages for defects – breach of contract claims – deceit claims – negligence claim – breach of statutory warranties claims – s92 Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – held: plaintiff succeeded on various claims.
View Decision
Fussell v Deigan [2018] NSWSC 1419
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Parker J
Contract – equity – estoppel – proceedings concerned contract for sale of land – land owned by deceased – plaintiff was purchaser – defendant was executrix – plaintiff and deceased entered contract – completion date passed without settlement occurring – deceased died – defendant contended special condition of contract entitled deceased’s ‘legal personal representative’ to rescind contract if deceased died – defendant sought to rescind contract under special condition – plaintiff sought specific performance compelling defendant to complete contract – whether clause of contract permitted contract to be rescinded on deceased’s behalf following death – whether clause should be rectified – whether defendant not entitled to rescind due to estoppel, breach of contract by deceased, ‘accrued right to specific performance’ and/or relief against forfeiture – whether defendant had authority to issue first rescission notice as she had not obtained probate – whether subsequent grant of probate retrospectively conferred authority on defendant – held: plaintiff entitled to specific performance because, in issuing second rescission notice, defendant took advantage of breach of contract by deceased’s estate in failing to complete contract – judgment for plaintiff.
View Decision
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Parker J
Contract – equity – estoppel – proceedings concerned contract for sale of land – land owned by deceased – plaintiff was purchaser – defendant was executrix – plaintiff and deceased entered contract – completion date passed without settlement occurring – deceased died – defendant contended special condition of contract entitled deceased’s ‘legal personal representative’ to rescind contract if deceased died – defendant sought to rescind contract under special condition – plaintiff sought specific performance compelling defendant to complete contract – whether clause of contract permitted contract to be rescinded on deceased’s behalf following death – whether clause should be rectified – whether defendant not entitled to rescind due to estoppel, breach of contract by deceased, ‘accrued right to specific performance’ and/or relief against forfeiture – whether defendant had authority to issue first rescission notice as she had not obtained probate – whether subsequent grant of probate retrospectively conferred authority on defendant – held: plaintiff entitled to specific performance because, in issuing second rescission notice, defendant took advantage of breach of contract by deceased’s estate in failing to complete contract – judgment for plaintiff.
View Decision
Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163
Court of Appeal of Western Australia
Murphy & Mitchell JJA; Allanson J
Corporations – contract – appellant as principal engaged respondent as builder to carry out works – appellant obtained funding from bank – appellant granted bank security over its personal property – bank registered charge under Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) – Receivers appointed to respondent – respondent went into liquidation – disputes arose concerning parties claims against each other – appellant contends claims against respondent exceeded respondent’s claims against it – appellant contended it was entitled to set-off of its claims against respondent’s claims – respondent contended appellant had no right to deduction or set-off – primary judge found in respondent’s favour on preliminary issues – appellant appealed – whether s553C Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) entitled appellants’ claims to be set off against respondent’s claims with balance to ‘admissible to proof’ against respondent – held: appellant was entitled to set-off its claims against respondent’s claims – appeal allowed.
Hamersley
Court of Appeal of Western Australia
Murphy & Mitchell JJA; Allanson J
Corporations – contract – appellant as principal engaged respondent as builder to carry out works – appellant obtained funding from bank – appellant granted bank security over its personal property – bank registered charge under Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) – Receivers appointed to respondent – respondent went into liquidation – disputes arose concerning parties claims against each other – appellant contends claims against respondent exceeded respondent’s claims against it – appellant contended it was entitled to set-off of its claims against respondent’s claims – respondent contended appellant had no right to deduction or set-off – primary judge found in respondent’s favour on preliminary issues – appellant appealed – whether s553C Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) entitled appellants’ claims to be set off against respondent’s claims with balance to ‘admissible to proof’ against respondent – held: appellant was entitled to set-off its claims against respondent’s claims – appeal allowed.
Hamersley
Stay Informed – Connect with us on LinkedIn
The Rising Risk of Tobacco Retailer Tenants for Strata and Property Owners
Earlier this year we wrote an article about high-risk tenants for strata and pro...
03 December, 2024Holiday 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, 2024