Thiess Pty Ltd and John Holland Pty Ltd v Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 173

Thiess Pty Ltd and John Holland Pty Ltd v Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 173

PSM breached its contractual obligations because it failed to assess continually whether PB's modified MAR VII support design remained suitable for the actual G7/G8 and dyke-affected ground conditions encountered in and around the MC5B/MCAA intersection and failed to raise the inadequacy of that design with PB. The design was not frozen after 29 September 2005, and PSM remained bound by its observational design and review obligations. PB's inadequate design and PSM's failure to review and report were both effective causes of the collapse; TJH construction departures proved in the updrive or MC5B were not shown to have caused the downdrive collapse, and equivalent departures in the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Technology and Construction List; Building and Construction Contract and Negligence Proceeding / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Plaintiffs Compromised Claims Against the First, Second and Fourth Defendants, Leaving Claims Against the Third Defendant to Be Determined
Outcome
Plaintiffs to have judgment against the third defendant for $6,983,333.00 together with interest.
Legal Topics
['tunnel Construction Collapse' 'breach of Consultancy Agreement' 'observational Approach to Design' 'ground Support Design' 'professional Negligence Defence Under S 5 O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'proportionate Liability and Apportionment' 'waiver of Subrogation']
['contract' 'negligence' 'building and Construction' 'civil Liability' 'damages' 'insurance'] ['tunnel Construction Collapse' 'breach of Consultancy Agreement' 'observational Approach to Design' 'ground Support Design' 'professional Negligence Defence Under S 5 O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)' 'proportionate Liability and Apportionment' 'waiver of Subrogation']

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 Technology and Construction List; Building and Construction Contract and Negligence Proceeding / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Plaintiffs Compromised Claims Against the First, Second and Fourth Defendants, Leaving Claims Against the Third Defendant to Be Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What documents comprised the relevant ground support designs for the MC5B/MCAA intersection and surrounds, who prepared them, and whether they were verified by URS.' 'Whether TJH departed from the relevant designs, site instructions, GSDs, or the cut one bolt one policy in a way that caused or contributed to the collapse.' 'What contractual obligations PSM owed to TJH under its Consultancy Agreement and the GSD WMS during excavation and support installation.' 'Whether PB, PSM or URS breached obligations owed to TJH in relation to design, review, verification, monitoring or reporting.' 'Whether PB or PSM could rely on s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).' 'Whether any breach caused the roof collapse and how responsibility should be apportioned between PB and PSM.' 'Whether waiver of subrogation under the Construction Risks Policy or Legal Liability Policy precluded recovery from PSM.']

Ratio Decidendi

PSM breached its contractual obligations because it failed to assess continually whether PB's modified MAR VII support design remained suitable for the actual G7/G8 and dyke-affected ground conditions encountered in and around the MC5B/MCAA intersection and failed to raise the inadequacy of that design with PB. The design was not frozen after 29 September 2005, and PSM remained bound by its observational design and review obligations. PB's inadequate design and PSM's failure to review and report were both effective causes of the collapse; TJH construction departures proved in the updrive or MC5B were not shown to have caused the downdrive collapse, and equivalent departures in the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs to have judgment against the third defendant for $6,983,333.00 together with interest.

Orders

  • ['Direct the parties to prepare and submit to my Associate, by 15 March 2016, an agreed calculation of interest on the sum of $6,983,333.00.' 'Direct the parties, by the same date, to submit to my Associate the draft orders for which each contends.' 'Stand proceedings over to 9:30am on 17 March 2016 for entry of...