Yisheng Construction Pty Ltd v City Garden Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 221

Yisheng Construction Pty Ltd v City Garden Australia Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 221

The WeChat messages did not convey that City Garden would take over responsibility for paying the plaintiffs. At the site meeting, City Garden represented that if subcontractors returned to work it would pay amounts properly due under their subcontracts and future work assessed by the Builder, and that representation was sufficiently certain to constitute an enforceable offer accepted by performance. However, the plaintiffs' late proposed amendments advanced a radically different case on quantum from the pleaded case and were refused; in any event, the payment schedules and bank statements tendered did not prove the amounts properly payable or unpaid. The plaintiffs therefore failed to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity Technology and Construction List / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Leave to amend refused; proceedings dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['contract Formation' 'unilateral Contract' 'promissory Estoppel' 'detrimental Reliance' 'implied Terms' 'proof of Damages' 'amendment of Pleadings']
['contracts' 'equity' 'construction Law'] ['contract Formation' 'unilateral Contract' 'promissory Estoppel' 'detrimental Reliance' 'implied Terms' 'proof of Damages' 'amendment of Pleadings']

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

Equity Technology and Construction List / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether written and oral statements by or on behalf of City Garden amounted to a contractual offer to pay the plaintiffs' outstanding invoices and the cost of works required to complete the development." "Whether City Garden was estopped from denying payment in accordance with the plaintiffs' assumption that if they continued to do the building works they would be paid by City Garden." 'Whether the plaintiffs should have leave to amend their summons and technology and construction list statement to advance a different basis for quantifying their claims.' "Whether the plaintiffs proved any amount due under the contract or any loss arising from reliance on City Garden's representation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The WeChat messages did not convey that City Garden would take over responsibility for paying the plaintiffs. At the site meeting, City Garden represented that if subcontractors returned to work it would pay amounts properly due under their subcontracts and future work assessed by the Builder, and that representation was sufficiently certain to constitute an enforceable offer accepted by performance. However, the plaintiffs' late proposed amendments advanced a radically different case on quantum from the pleaded case and were refused; in any event, the payment schedules and bank statements tendered did not prove the amounts properly payable or unpaid. The plaintiffs therefore failed to...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend refused; proceedings dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to the plaintiffs to file the amended summons and amended technology and construction list statement.' 'Proceedings dismissed.' "The plaintiffs pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings."]