01 Mar Construction Law Review
Construction Law Review – March
See below our Construction Law Review selected from AR Conolly’s Daily Bulletins covering Insurance, Banking, Construction & Government.
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Ball J
Building contract – negligence – plaintiff sued defendants for defective concrete paving at container terminal – first defendant cross claimed against second defendant for same damage – contractual warranties – assignment – apportionment – estoppel – estoppel by convention – ascertainment of parties to contact – damages – Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – Trade Practices Act 1974(Cth) – held: plaintiff entitled to damages from first defendant for costs in relation to replacement of pavement – second defendant liable to pay to first defendant amount which first defendant was liable to pay to plaintiff.
Tzaneros
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Bathurst CJ, Macfarlan JA & Tobias AJA
Professional negligence – solicitors’ duties – respondent property developer sued appellant lawyers for allegedly negligent advice (“restructure advice”) in relation to purchase of property – primary judge found in favour of respondent – causation – post-caveat advice – “independent unreasonable conduct” – held: no error in primary judge’s finding that restructure advice was negligent and that negligence caused respondent’s loss – appellants precluded from raising argument as to unreasonable conduct and causation for first time on appeal – no error established by primary judge in relation to costs – appeal dismissed.
Consolidated Lawyers Ltd
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Morrison JA; Douglas & North JJA
Contract – construction contract – linked agreements – applicant and respondent entered two linked agreements by which applicant would build shed for respondent and respondent would build boat for applicant – applicant contended he built shed but respondent’s company did not pay full amount as required – applicant also contended respondent did not build boat as required – applicant sued respondent and company for damages for breach of contract – proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution – applicant sought leave to appeal – whether appeal necessary to correct substantial injustice – whether reasonable argument there was error – delay – prejudice – s118(3) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – rr5, 214(2)(e), 280, 389 & 444 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – held: primary judge erred in finding circumstances warranted dismissal – dismissal of claim amounted to substantial injustice – leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed.
Pittaway
Court of Appeal of Queensland
Fraser, Gotterson & Morrison JJA
Real property – easements – respondent owned property which he subdivided into two properties- appellant purchased one of the properties – respondent continued to use road (Road A) leading from his property through appellant’s property by informal agreement – by informal agreement respondent constructed another road (Road D) which crossed appellant’s property – appellant denied respondent permission to cross her property – respondent granted statutory right of user for Road A and Road D pursuant to s180Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) – appellant sought to appeal – held: in the circumstances Road D was not “reasonably necessary in the interests of the effective use” of respondent’s property – preference for Road D did not meet test under s180 – appeal in allowed in relation to easement over Road D allowed.
Bradshaw
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Mossop AsJ
Building contract – action arising out of written contract for construction of residence – plaintiff was builder and defendants were owners – builder terminated for alleged failure to comply with contractual requirement to supply evidence of owners’ capacity to pay required amount – whether builder’s termination valid – held: builder not entitled to insist that Owners provide evidence of capacity to pay amount or to rely on alternative provision to support validity of termination of the contract – owners entitled only to nominal damages in relation to claim for damages for repudiation.
R Developments
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