Baker & Provan Defence Pty Limited v Supacat Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 720

Baker & Provan Defence Pty Limited v Supacat Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 720

Supacat did not act reasonably in its determinations under the Assembly Agreement, as it failed to address BPD’s detailed explanations of cost overruns and did not give BPD a proper opportunity to make submissions or engage substantively with the evidence. The contractually required process was not followed, leading to a breach. The absence of substantive rebuttal from Supacat and BPD’s uncontradicted claims meant that BPD demonstrated Supacat acting reasonably would have attributed all overruns to itself; therefore, damages claimed by BPD are awarded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['contract Interpretation' 'proof of Damages' 'reasonableness in Contractual Determinations']
['contract'] ['contract Interpretation' 'proof of Damages' 'reasonableness in Contractual Determinations']

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

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Supacat Pty Ltd acted reasonably in apportioning responsibility for assembly cost overruns under an Assembly Agreement' 'Determination and proof of damages for breach of contract']

Ratio Decidendi

Supacat did not act reasonably in its determinations under the Assembly Agreement, as it failed to address BPD’s detailed explanations of cost overruns and did not give BPD a proper opportunity to make submissions or engage substantively with the evidence. The contractually required process was not followed, leading to a breach. The absence of substantive rebuttal from Supacat and BPD’s uncontradicted claims meant that BPD demonstrated Supacat acting reasonably would have attributed all overruns to itself; therefore, damages claimed by BPD are awarded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,409,882.15;' "Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings;" 'Liberty to either party to apply to vary order (2) within 14 days of the date of this judgment.']