Stockland (Constructors) Pty Limited & Anor v Darryl I Coombs Pty Limited & Ors [2005] NSWSC 157

Stockland (Constructors) Pty Limited & Anor v Darryl I Coombs Pty Limited & Ors [2005] NSWSC 157

The referee was not shown to have made any error of reasoning, construction or law requiring rejection of the second report. Construed in context, the agreement treated changes in scope and changes in design as a compendious element of architectural services, with compensation governed by the sliding scale provision rather than scheduled hourly rates. Because an enforceable contract covered the relevant position, the alternative quantum meruit claim was unavailable. The proper compensation method was the 3.5% rate applied to the increased construction cost, and the second report should therefore be adopted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Part 72 Reference; Contract; Construction / Notices of Motion Concerning Adoption or Rejection of Referee's Second Report After Remitter
Outcome
Second report adopted; cross-claimant's notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['part 72 References' "adoption of Referee's Report" 'construction of Architectural Services Agreement' 'variations and Design Changes' 'quantum Meruit']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'construction Law'] ['part 72 References' "adoption of Referee's Report" 'construction of Architectural Services Agreement' 'variations and Design Changes' 'quantum Meruit']

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

Practice and Procedure; Part 72 Reference; Contract; Construction / Notices of Motion Concerning Adoption or Rejection of Referee's Second Report After Remitter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the referee's report dated 29 November 2004 should be adopted or rejected insofar as it concerned the quantum of fees recoverable by the cross-claimant." 'Whether the agreement differentiated between methods of valuation for changes in scope and changes in design, provided the same method for both, or provided only for changes in scope.' 'Whether the cross-claimant could recover on an alternative quantum meruit basis despite an enforceable contract covering the relevant position.' 'Whether the proper method of compensation was to apply the 3.5% rate to the increased cost of construction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The referee was not shown to have made any error of reasoning, construction or law requiring rejection of the second report. Construed in context, the agreement treated changes in scope and changes in design as a compendious element of architectural services, with compensation governed by the sliding scale provision rather than scheduled hourly rates. Because an enforceable contract covered the relevant position, the alternative quantum meruit claim was unavailable. The proper compensation method was the 3.5% rate applied to the increased construction cost, and the second report should therefore be adopted.

Court Disposition

Second report adopted; cross-claimant's notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The second report is to be adopted.' "The cross-claimant's notice of motion is to be dismissed." 'Costs may be argued when the parties bring in short minutes of order.']