Dick v Buildingwise Constructions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 214

Dick v Buildingwise Constructions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 214

The Tribunal did not err in its interpretation of the contract to include labour in prime cost items where the contract and accompanying tender provided for 'supply and install'; nor did it wrongly assess contract variations under quantum meruit except as to the finding in relation to the quantum meruit assessment for Pool 1, for which the evidence relied on was not adequately addressed and consideration of key contrary evidence was omitted, resulting in potential substantial injustice. On that limited ground, leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Decision Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except for Appeal Ground 4.2, for which leave to appeal is granted and the appeal allowed; matter remitted for redetermination with directions for submissions on quantum meruit and appropriate orders.
Legal Topics
['appeal' 'quantum Meruit' 'contract Interpretation' 'prime Cost Items' 'variation Claims']
['contract Law' 'building and Construction'] ['appeal' 'quantum Meruit' 'contract Interpretation' 'prime Cost Items' 'variation Claims']

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

Appeal / Interlocutory Decision Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in construction of prime cost items to include labour' 'Whether variations could be assessed on a quantum meruit basis where works were under contract' 'Adequacy of reasons for decision for certain variations' 'Proper assessment of quantum meruit claim for variation involving Pool 1' 'Whether findings were against the weight of evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in its interpretation of the contract to include labour in prime cost items where the contract and accompanying tender provided for 'supply and install'; nor did it wrongly assess contract variations under quantum meruit except as to the finding in relation to the quantum meruit assessment for Pool 1, for which the evidence relied on was not adequately addressed and consideration of key contrary evidence was omitted, resulting in potential substantial injustice. On that limited ground, leave to appeal was granted and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except for Appeal Ground 4.2, for which leave to appeal is granted and the appeal allowed; matter remitted for redetermination with directions for submissions on quantum meruit and appropriate orders.

Orders

  • ['1. Save for Appeal Ground 4.2, the appeal is dismissed.' '2. On or before 21 August 2023, the appellants are to file and serve submissions as to whether the matters the subject of Ground 4.2 should be reconsidered by the Appeal Panel or Tribunal and reasons why; if reconsidered by Appeal Panel, submissions...