Phillips v Tobias Partners Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 496

Phillips v Tobias Partners Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 496

The Architecture Agreement, particularly clauses 2.3 and 2.5 read with clause 19.1 of the standard terms, provided for fees to be payable by instalments and monthly invoices and was inconsistent with completion of Stage 2 being a condition precedent to Tobias Partners' entitlement to payment. Stage 3 was different because the agreement contemplated sequential stages and client approval to proceed after a resolved and costed design concept; Tobias Partners could not recover Stage 3 hourly charges before completion of Stage 2 and approval to proceed. No arguable error was shown in the Local Court's discretionary costs order, and leave to reargue factual or mixed questions was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court / Supreme Court Appeal and Cross Appeal; Applications for Leave to Appeal From Costs Decision
Outcome
Grounds of appeal and cross appeal rejected. Applications for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['construction of Agreement to Supply Architectural Services' 'entire Obligation' 'staged Performance of Work' 'appeal From Local Court' 'leave to Appeal From Costs Decision']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['construction of Agreement to Supply Architectural Services' 'entire Obligation' 'staged Performance of Work' 'appeal From Local Court' 'leave to Appeal From Costs Decision']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Local Court / Supreme Court Appeal and Cross Appeal; Applications for Leave to Appeal From Costs Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Architecture Agreement contained an entire obligation requiring complete or substantial performance of Stage 2 before Tobias Partners could recover fees for that stage.' 'Whether Tobias Partners was entitled to recover for Stage 3 work before Stage 2 had been completed and client approval to proceed obtained.' "Whether leave should be granted to challenge the Local Court's costs order."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Architecture Agreement, particularly clauses 2.3 and 2.5 read with clause 19.1 of the standard terms, provided for fees to be payable by instalments and monthly invoices and was inconsistent with completion of Stage 2 being a condition precedent to Tobias Partners' entitlement to payment. Stage 3 was different because the agreement contemplated sequential stages and client approval to proceed after a resolved and costed design concept; Tobias Partners could not recover Stage 3 hourly charges before completion of Stage 2 and approval to proceed. No arguable error was shown in the Local Court's discretionary costs order, and leave to reargue factual or mixed questions was refused.

Court Disposition

Grounds of appeal and cross appeal rejected. Applications for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['On or before 17 May 2013 each party file and serve written submissions concerning the form of relief and costs of the proceedings in this Court, such submissions not to exceed four pages in length.' 'On or before 21 May 2013, each party file and serve any written submissions in reply on those matters, such...