
01 May Construction Law Review
Construction Law Review – April
Please refer below to our Construction Law Review, selected from AR Conolly’s Daily Bulletins covering Insurance, Banking, Construction & Government.
Hingst v Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 67
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Priest AP & Beach JA
Negligence – workplace bullying – unfair dismissal – employment – self-represented litigant – applicant employed by respondent – applicant claimed he was bullied in workplace with result he developed injuries – applicant also claimed respondent had ‘unlawfully terminated his employment’ and that he had executed ‘Deed of Release and Settlement’ ‘under duress’ – primary judge dismissed proceeding – applicant challenged primary judge’s ‘factual findings’ – applicant also contended trial was unfair due to primary judge’s breach of duty to unrepresented litigant – held: applicant’s grounds of appeal lacked substance – leave to appeal refused.
Hingst
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Priest AP & Beach JA
Negligence – workplace bullying – unfair dismissal – employment – self-represented litigant – applicant employed by respondent – applicant claimed he was bullied in workplace with result he developed injuries – applicant also claimed respondent had ‘unlawfully terminated his employment’ and that he had executed ‘Deed of Release and Settlement’ ‘under duress’ – primary judge dismissed proceeding – applicant challenged primary judge’s ‘factual findings’ – applicant also contended trial was unfair due to primary judge’s breach of duty to unrepresented litigant – held: applicant’s grounds of appeal lacked substance – leave to appeal refused.
Hingst
Cando Management and Maintenance Pty Ltd v Cumberland Council [2019] NSWCA 26
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley P; Meagher & White JJA
Environment and planning – respondent sought declaration appellant, in breach of s4.3 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA), ’carried out prohibited development for which no development consent was in force’ – respondent also sought declaration appellant breached ss81A(2)(a) & s81A(2)(b) EPA – no dispute appellant breached ss81A(2)(a) & 81A(2)(b) – respondent also sought injunction to restrain appellant from use of premises – appeal concerned two issues – whether primary judge erred in finding lapse of development consent – whether Land and Environment Court could and should have ordered breaches of EPA ’should be sanctioned and authorised’ if certain ’rectification works’ performed – held: development consent had not lapsed – injunction against property’s ’use and occupation’ to continue until appellant obtained construction certificate, appointed ’principal certifying authority’ and obtained occupation certificate – appeal allowed in part.
View Decision
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Beazley P; Meagher & White JJA
Environment and planning – respondent sought declaration appellant, in breach of s4.3 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA), ’carried out prohibited development for which no development consent was in force’ – respondent also sought declaration appellant breached ss81A(2)(a) & s81A(2)(b) EPA – no dispute appellant breached ss81A(2)(a) & 81A(2)(b) – respondent also sought injunction to restrain appellant from use of premises – appeal concerned two issues – whether primary judge erred in finding lapse of development consent – whether Land and Environment Court could and should have ordered breaches of EPA ’should be sanctioned and authorised’ if certain ’rectification works’ performed – held: development consent had not lapsed – injunction against property’s ’use and occupation’ to continue until appellant obtained construction certificate, appointed ’principal certifying authority’ and obtained occupation certificate – appeal allowed in part.
View Decision
Boss Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Rohrig (NSW) Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 374
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hammerschlag J
Contract – parties sued each other for breach of an ‘asserted contract’ – ‘lengthy commercial dealings’ – whether ‘binding contract’ concluded – ‘objective assessment’ of behaviour of parties – Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1997 (NSW) – held: neither party established contract which it contended for – no binding contract between parties – claim and cross-claim dismissed.
View Decision
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hammerschlag J
Contract – parties sued each other for breach of an ‘asserted contract’ – ‘lengthy commercial dealings’ – whether ‘binding contract’ concluded – ‘objective assessment’ of behaviour of parties – Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1997 (NSW) – held: neither party established contract which it contended for – no binding contract between parties – claim and cross-claim dismissed.
View Decision
Hampshire Automotive Centre Pty Ltd v Centre Com (Sunshine) Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 77
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Tate, Niall & Emerton JJA
Real property – easements – trespass – applicant and first respondent were ‘tenants of neighbouring commercial properties’ – applicant breached fence which separated properties – applicant used property of first respondent ‘for access and ingress’ and to store vehicles – first respondent sued applicant in trespass – applicant counterclaimed on basis it used land under easement ‘created by prescription based on long user’ – primary judge found owner’s consent was necessary for counterclaim, dismissed counterclaim and found in favour of first respondent – whether easement could be created by tenant’s use independent of consent of landlord and enforced by person in land’s possession – held: judge incorrectly concluded owner’s consent was required for tenant to enforce easement – dominant’s owner’s ‘knowledge or consent’ not required to create ‘easement by prescription by long user’ – appeal allowed – retrial.
Hampshire
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Tate, Niall & Emerton JJA
Real property – easements – trespass – applicant and first respondent were ‘tenants of neighbouring commercial properties’ – applicant breached fence which separated properties – applicant used property of first respondent ‘for access and ingress’ and to store vehicles – first respondent sued applicant in trespass – applicant counterclaimed on basis it used land under easement ‘created by prescription based on long user’ – primary judge found owner’s consent was necessary for counterclaim, dismissed counterclaim and found in favour of first respondent – whether easement could be created by tenant’s use independent of consent of landlord and enforced by person in land’s possession – held: judge incorrectly concluded owner’s consent was required for tenant to enforce easement – dominant’s owner’s ‘knowledge or consent’ not required to create ‘easement by prescription by long user’ – appeal allowed – retrial.
Hampshire
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