01 Oct Construction Law Review
Construction Law Review – September
Please refer below to our Construction Law Review, selected from AR Conolly’s Daily Bulletins covering Insurance, Banking, Construction & Government.
Cappello v Hammond & Simonds NSW Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1021
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Ball J
Construction contract – first defendant agreed ‘to undertake renovation work’ at plaintiffs’ residence – second defendant was a director of first defendant – second defendant ‘supervised the building work’ – whether first defendant ‘validly terminated’ contract on basis of ‘non-payment of part of invoice’ – whether first defendant, subject to any set-offs of plaintiffs, was entitled to recover invoice’s balance and sum for ‘work performed but not invoiced’ before contract was terminated – whether plaintiffs ‘entitled to damages for delay’ in building work’s completion and/or for defects and amounts allegedly overcharged by first defendant – whether second defendant liable for damages – quantum meruit – implied warranties – liquidated damages – ss18B & 18G Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – held: judgment for first defendant against plaintiffs – plaintiff’s claim against second defendant dismissed.
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Ball J
Construction contract – first defendant agreed ‘to undertake renovation work’ at plaintiffs’ residence – second defendant was a director of first defendant – second defendant ‘supervised the building work’ – whether first defendant ‘validly terminated’ contract on basis of ‘non-payment of part of invoice’ – whether first defendant, subject to any set-offs of plaintiffs, was entitled to recover invoice’s balance and sum for ‘work performed but not invoiced’ before contract was terminated – whether plaintiffs ‘entitled to damages for delay’ in building work’s completion and/or for defects and amounts allegedly overcharged by first defendant – whether second defendant liable for damages – quantum meruit – implied warranties – liquidated damages – ss18B & 18G Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – held: judgment for first defendant against plaintiffs – plaintiff’s claim against second defendant dismissed.
One Pro Baulkham Hills Pty Ltd v Ming Tian Real Property Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1043
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Stevenson J
Contract – consumer law – plaintiff principal and defendant contractor entered building contract for townhouses’ construction on property which developer owned – contractor did not build the townhouses – by “Deed of Termination” parties ’agreed to “mutually terminate”’ building contract – plaintiff sought damages from defendant for “twin failures” – the alleged twin failures were failures ’to provide “contractor’s security” by way of a bank guarantee and evidence of home warranty insurance’ – plaintiff also sought damages from defendant’s sole director for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct – whether conditions precedent satisfied – whether exclusion clause survived termination – held: plaintiff did not establish damage due to any breach by defendant, or loss due to any misleading or deceptive conduct by director – proceedings dismissed.
View Decision
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Stevenson J
Contract – consumer law – plaintiff principal and defendant contractor entered building contract for townhouses’ construction on property which developer owned – contractor did not build the townhouses – by “Deed of Termination” parties ’agreed to “mutually terminate”’ building contract – plaintiff sought damages from defendant for “twin failures” – the alleged twin failures were failures ’to provide “contractor’s security” by way of a bank guarantee and evidence of home warranty insurance’ – plaintiff also sought damages from defendant’s sole director for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct – whether conditions precedent satisfied – whether exclusion clause survived termination – held: plaintiff did not establish damage due to any breach by defendant, or loss due to any misleading or deceptive conduct by director – proceedings dismissed.
View Decision
Michael Kuehn & Jennifer Kuehn v Masterton Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd t/as Masterton Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1049
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hammerschlag J
Contract – compromise – proceedings concerning whether plaintiffs had compromise ‘in binding fashion’ claim against first defendant ‘home builder’ in NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal – plaintiffs denied ‘binding compromise’ had been reached – plaintiffs contended that if binding compromise reached, compromise had occurred due to breaches by plaintiffs’ lawyers – plaintiffs had joined lawyers as defendant – whether plaintiffs had compromised claims such that they could not claim against first defendant – held: there was no ‘binding compromise or settlement’ – proceedings against lawyers dismissed.
View Decision
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Hammerschlag J
Contract – compromise – proceedings concerning whether plaintiffs had compromise ‘in binding fashion’ claim against first defendant ‘home builder’ in NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal – plaintiffs denied ‘binding compromise’ had been reached – plaintiffs contended that if binding compromise reached, compromise had occurred due to breaches by plaintiffs’ lawyers – plaintiffs had joined lawyers as defendant – whether plaintiffs had compromised claims such that they could not claim against first defendant – held: there was no ‘binding compromise or settlement’ – proceedings against lawyers dismissed.
View Decision
Leeda Projects Pty Ltd v Zeng [2020] VSCA 192
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Tate, Kaye & McLeish JJA
Contract – respondent engaged applicant ‘to perform building works for the fitting out of a private art gallery’ – applicant, in breach of contract, did not complete works ‘within a reasonable time’ – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal awarded ‘only nominal damages’ to applicant – primary judge awarded ‘substantial damages’ to respondent – applicant sought to appeal – ‘appropriate assessment for damages’ for contractual breach causing loss of use of asset – whether assessment to be made ‘by reference to ‘notional’ or ‘wasted’ costs of ownership’ – whether issues concerning ‘mitigation of damages and costs’ should have been remitted to Tribunal – held: appeal allowed – notice of contention allowed.
Leeda
Court of Appeal of Victoria
Tate, Kaye & McLeish JJA
Contract – respondent engaged applicant ‘to perform building works for the fitting out of a private art gallery’ – applicant, in breach of contract, did not complete works ‘within a reasonable time’ – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal awarded ‘only nominal damages’ to applicant – primary judge awarded ‘substantial damages’ to respondent – applicant sought to appeal – ‘appropriate assessment for damages’ for contractual breach causing loss of use of asset – whether assessment to be made ‘by reference to ‘notional’ or ‘wasted’ costs of ownership’ – whether issues concerning ‘mitigation of damages and costs’ should have been remitted to Tribunal – held: appeal allowed – notice of contention allowed.
Leeda
Stay Informed – Connect with us on LinkedIn
Are 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, 2024Strata Insurance Insights: Why Insurers Are Keeping An Eye On Lithium-Ion Batteries
In recent years, Australia has experienced a surge in fires linked to lithium-io...
24 July, 2024Finalists Announced for the Strata Services Business Award
Finalists Announced for the Strata Services Business Award The independent judgi...
23 July, 2024