Stepanoski v Aslan (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1916

Stepanoski v Aslan (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1916

Because the defendant's consultant accepted that at least $471,244.10 was required to complete the works, and the defendant's pleaded cross-claim items totalled $245,533.72, there could be no dispute that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages of at least the difference, $225,710.38. It was therefore appropriate to enter judgment for that minimum amount without prejudicing the plaintiffs' claim for any further damages or the defendant's cross-claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Alleged Breaches of a Building Contract and a Cross Claim / Part Heard Proceedings; Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Entry of Judgment for an Undisputed Amount Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 13.1
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of $225,710.38; remaining claims, cross-claims, costs and further conduct reserved.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'undisputed Amount' 'building Contract Damages' 'lump Sum Contract' 'cross Claim']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'building and Construction'] ['summary Judgment' 'undisputed Amount' 'building Contract Damages' 'lump Sum Contract' 'cross Claim']

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 Proceedings Concerning Alleged Breaches of a Building Contract and a Cross Claim / Part Heard Proceedings; Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Entry of Judgment for an Undisputed Amount Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 13.1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs for an amount not disputed by the defendant under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 13.1.' "Whether the defendant's asserted cross-claim prevented entry of judgment for the minimum amount accepted as payable to the plaintiffs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant's consultant accepted that at least $471,244.10 was required to complete the works, and the defendant's pleaded cross-claim items totalled $245,533.72, there could be no dispute that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages of at least the difference, $225,710.38. It was therefore appropriate to enter judgment for that minimum amount without prejudicing the plaintiffs' claim for any further damages or the defendant's cross-claim.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of $225,710.38; remaining claims, cross-claims, costs and further conduct reserved.

Orders

  • ['Direct the entry of judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant in the sum of $225,710.38.' 'Reserve to the plaintiffs for further hearing the balance of the claim made in their Technology and Construction List Statement.' 'Reserve to the defendant for further hearing the claims made in his Technology and...