Broadlex Services v RCR Resolve FM (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1514

Broadlex Services v RCR Resolve FM (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1514

Broadlex was entitled to payment for invoices for cleaning services rendered, as the contract (as constructed and as estopped by the parties' conduct) excluded certain 'extra charge' services from the fixed fee, and, except for a claim for a site supervisor, Resolve's cross-claim for damages failed for lack of proof or because estoppel prevented assertion contrary to the long-running mutual assumption; interest was payable as no relevant dispute had been raised per the contract's dispute procedure.

Parties
Plaintiff / Cross Defendant: Broadlex Services Pty Ltd; Defendant / Cross Claimant: RCR Resolve FM Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Verdict and Orders Following Trial
Outcome
Verdict for plaintiff for $241,378.77 plus interest; verdict for defendant for $187,500 plus interest on cross-claim; verdicts to be set off; plaintiff to have judgment for balance after set-off.
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Construction of Contract, Scope of Services Under Contract, Estoppel by Convention, Incorporation of Standard Terms, Breach of Contract, Damages Assessment, Contractual Admissions, Interest on Unpaid Invoices
Contract Estoppel Damages Practice & Procedure Contract Formation Construction of Contract Scope of Services Under Contract Estoppel by Convention +5 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Broadlex Services Pty Ltd

Plaintiff / Cross Defendant

RCR Resolve FM Pty Ltd

Defendant / Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Verdict and Orders Following Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What services was Broadlex required to perform for the fixed remuneration under the contract with Resolve?
  2. 2 Were 'extra charge services' outside the scope of the contract such that additional remuneration was payable?
  3. 3 Whether there was a conventional estoppel that altered the parties' contractual relations concerning extra charge services?

Ratio Decidendi

Broadlex was entitled to payment for invoices for cleaning services rendered, as the contract (as constructed and as estopped by the parties' conduct) excluded certain 'extra charge' services from the fixed fee, and, except for a claim for a site supervisor, Resolve's cross-claim for damages failed for lack of proof or because estoppel prevented assertion contrary to the long-running mutual assumption; interest was payable as no relevant dispute had been raised per the contract's dispute procedure.

Court Disposition

Verdict for plaintiff for $241,378.77 plus interest; verdict for defendant for $187,500 plus interest on cross-claim; verdicts to be set off; plaintiff to have judgment for balance after set-off.

Orders

  • Stand proceedings over to 10am on 3 November 2015 for entry of judgment and submissions on costs.
  • Parties to prepare agreed calculation of interest, and draft final orders, to be exchanged by 2 November 2015.