McDonald Contracting Pty Ltd v Fletcher Construction (Australia) Ltd [1999] NSWCA 207

McDonald Contracting Pty Ltd v Fletcher Construction (Australia) Ltd [1999] NSWCA 207

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal turned on disputed factual questions about the quantity of shoring work completed by 15 September 1994, it was not clear that the trial judge's factual conclusion was wrong, the amount involved was comparatively small, and the circumstances did not justify using appellate and trial court resources for the matter.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal in a Contract Dispute / Application for Leave to Appeal From a District Court Decision; Proposed Cross Appeal Did Not Arise
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs; Fletcher's cross-appeal did not arise for consideration.
Legal Topics
['repudiation' 'quantity of Work Performed' 'estoppel' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['repudiation' 'quantity of Work Performed' 'estoppel' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal in a Contract Dispute / Application for Leave to Appeal From a District Court Decision; Proposed Cross Appeal Did Not Arise

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the District Court decision on the ground of inadequacy.' 'Whether McDonald had an unconditional right to payment for 377m2 of shoring work at the date of termination.' 'Whether the issue on appeal was a point of law or a disputed factual issue concerning the quantity of shoring work completed by 15 September 1994.' 'Whether any estoppel would preclude McDonald from recovering an amount for shoring work completed at 15 September 1994.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal turned on disputed factual questions about the quantity of shoring work completed by 15 September 1994, it was not clear that the trial judge's factual conclusion was wrong, the amount involved was comparatively small, and the circumstances did not justify using appellate and trial court resources for the matter.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs; Fletcher's cross-appeal did not arise for consideration.

Orders

  • ['Leave refused with costs.']