Knobloch v Curtis; Curtis v Knobloch [2022] NSWCATAP 140

Knobloch v Curtis; Curtis v Knobloch [2022] NSWCATAP 140

The Appeal Panel held that the right to suspend works for non-payment under clause 21 of the contract depended upon proper compliance with clause 20; PC 3 did not comply, as it overstated the claim (including double counting and excessive hours) and was therefore not a proper basis for suspension. No error of law was found in the Tribunal’s contract interpretation, factual findings were supported by evidence, and there was no procedural unfairness or failure to provide adequate reasons. Leave to appeal on factual issues was refused and the appeals dismissed.

Parties
Appellant (2021/00155240); Respondent (2021/00163674): Ronald Knobloch; First Respondent (2021/00155240); First Appellant (2021/00163674): Christopher Curtis; Second Respondent (2021/00155240); Second Appellant (2021/00163674): Susanna Ford
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From Decision of Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division / Appeal Determination Before Appeal Panel
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; cross-appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
Legal Topics
Progress Payment Claims, Contract Interpretation, Right to Suspend Work, Procedural Fairness, Adequacy of Reasons
Building and Construction Law Contract Law Progress Payment Claims Contract Interpretation Right to Suspend Work Procedural Fairness Adequacy of Reasons

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Knobloch

Appellant (2021/00155240); Respondent (2021/00163674)

Christopher Curtis

First Respondent (2021/00155240); First Appellant (2021/00163674)

Susanna Ford

Second Respondent (2021/00155240); Second Appellant (2021/00163674)

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal From Decision of Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division / Appeal Determination Before Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the builder was entitled to suspend works based on underpayment of a progress payment claim (PC 3) under the contract.
  2. 2 Whether PC 3 complied with requirements under clause 20 of the contract such that non-payment would trigger suspension rights under clause 21.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in law or fact in its finding regarding double counting and overstated amounts in PC 3.

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the right to suspend works for non-payment under clause 21 of the contract depended upon proper compliance with clause 20; PC 3 did not comply, as it overstated the claim (including double counting and excessive hours) and was therefore not a proper basis for suspension. No error of law was found in the Tribunal’s contract interpretation, factual findings were supported by evidence, and there was no procedural unfairness or failure to provide adequate reasons. Leave to appeal on factual issues was refused and the appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused; cross-appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Orders

  • In 2021/00155240: Leave to appeal is refused; the appeal is dismissed.
  • In 2021/00163674: The appeal is dismissed because it is withdrawn.