05 Apr 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.
Hyblewski v Bellerive Homes Pty Ltd [2019] ACTSC 44
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Mossop J
Building and construction – contract – plaintiff purchased land and executed contract with first defendant builder for construction of house on land – plaintiff engaged second defendant company (Asset Building Services) to perform certifier functions under Building Act 2004 (ACT) – plaintiff claimed certifier ‘failed to exercise due care and skill’ in performance of functions – whether breach of contract by certifier – approach to role – defects which a certifier compliant with ‘statutory and contractual obligations’ would have identified – damages – whether ‘apportionment provisions’ in ss140 & 141 of the Act applicable – held: judgment for plaintiff in sum of $156,706.
Hyblewski
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Mossop J
Building and construction – contract – plaintiff purchased land and executed contract with first defendant builder for construction of house on land – plaintiff engaged second defendant company (Asset Building Services) to perform certifier functions under Building Act 2004 (ACT) – plaintiff claimed certifier ‘failed to exercise due care and skill’ in performance of functions – whether breach of contract by certifier – approach to role – defects which a certifier compliant with ‘statutory and contractual obligations’ would have identified – damages – whether ‘apportionment provisions’ in ss140 & 141 of the Act applicable – held: judgment for plaintiff in sum of $156,706.
Hyblewski
Fullinfaw v Neil Fletcher Design Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 142
Supreme Court of Victoria
Garde J
Contract – administrative law – plaintiffs were owners – defendant was builder – plaintiffs ended ‘major domestic building contract’ with defendant under ‘no fault’ provision in s41 Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal rejected plaintiffs’ claim for liquidated damages – plaintiffs sought to appeal – whether plaintiffs entitled to deduct liquidated damages for delay from amount payable to builder for work done before end of contract – whether ‘right to liquidated damages had accrued’ by building contract’s termination date – whether erroneous failure to determine builder’s ‘extension of time’ claim – whether builder failed to provide evidence in support of claim for extension of time – cap in s41(6) of the Act – whether evidence to support claim of amount for liquidated damages – held: appeal allowed.
Fullinfaw
Supreme Court of Victoria
Garde J
Contract – administrative law – plaintiffs were owners – defendant was builder – plaintiffs ended ‘major domestic building contract’ with defendant under ‘no fault’ provision in s41 Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal rejected plaintiffs’ claim for liquidated damages – plaintiffs sought to appeal – whether plaintiffs entitled to deduct liquidated damages for delay from amount payable to builder for work done before end of contract – whether ‘right to liquidated damages had accrued’ by building contract’s termination date – whether erroneous failure to determine builder’s ‘extension of time’ claim – whether builder failed to provide evidence in support of claim for extension of time – cap in s41(6) of the Act – whether evidence to support claim of amount for liquidated damages – held: appeal allowed.
Fullinfaw
Brisbane City Council v Klinkert [2019] QCA 40
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Gotterson & Philippides JJA; Boddice J
Planning and environment – Council refused development application seeking approval to demolish house – primary judge upheld respondent’s appeal – Council, pursuant to s63 Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) sought to appeal – whether to grant leave to appeal – construction of Planning Act 2016 (Qld) – whether compliance with ‘assessment benchmarks’ – assessment manager’s obligations concerning development applications – whether s60(2)(a) Planning Act required approval of respondent’s application by assessment manager ‘once it was determined there was compliance’ with ‘relevant assessment benchmarks’ operating at time of application – held: leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed.
Brisbane
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Gotterson & Philippides JJA; Boddice J
Planning and environment – Council refused development application seeking approval to demolish house – primary judge upheld respondent’s appeal – Council, pursuant to s63 Planning and Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) sought to appeal – whether to grant leave to appeal – construction of Planning Act 2016 (Qld) – whether compliance with ‘assessment benchmarks’ – assessment manager’s obligations concerning development applications – whether s60(2)(a) Planning Act required approval of respondent’s application by assessment manager ‘once it was determined there was compliance’ with ‘relevant assessment benchmarks’ operating at time of application – held: leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed.
Brisbane
In the matter of SBC Construction Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 310
Supreme Court of New South Wales
White J
Corporations – winding up – statutory demand – defendant served statutory demand on plaintiff – debt arose from adjudication determinations under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) – plaintiff sought to set aside statutory demand – plaintiff contended at time statutory demand served and originating process filed, no judgment was in existence against plaintiff for claimed amount – plaintiff also sought to set aside statutory demand on basis of off-setting claims – held: at time statutory demand served on plaintiff defendant did not have judgment debt in claimed amount – Court retrospectively amended judgment – whether to set demand aside ‘because it was not verified when the debt claimed was not a judgment debt at the time of service of the demand, but is retrospectively to be taken as having been such a judgment debt’ – whether to set aside demand on condition plaintiff pay demanded amount into Court – ss459E & 459J Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – held: statutory demand set aside.
View Decision
Supreme Court of New South Wales
White J
Corporations – winding up – statutory demand – defendant served statutory demand on plaintiff – debt arose from adjudication determinations under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) – plaintiff sought to set aside statutory demand – plaintiff contended at time statutory demand served and originating process filed, no judgment was in existence against plaintiff for claimed amount – plaintiff also sought to set aside statutory demand on basis of off-setting claims – held: at time statutory demand served on plaintiff defendant did not have judgment debt in claimed amount – Court retrospectively amended judgment – whether to set demand aside ‘because it was not verified when the debt claimed was not a judgment debt at the time of service of the demand, but is retrospectively to be taken as having been such a judgment debt’ – whether to set aside demand on condition plaintiff pay demanded amount into Court – ss459E & 459J Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – held: statutory demand set aside.
View Decision
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