Trinvass Pty Ltd and Anor v Connect Infrastructure Design Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 394

Trinvass Pty Ltd and Anor v Connect Infrastructure Design Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 394

Connect was entitled to judgment because the parties' contractual arrangements made clear that Connect was engaged to provide Level 3 ASP design services and certification, not physical survey work such as potholing or trenching. The 2015 Agreement expressly excluded survey work, the 2015 and 2017 design plans contained repeated warnings that existing services had to be verified before construction, and the 2017 redesign was a variation of the 2015 Agreement so the exclusion continued to apply. In that context the pleaded express and implied representations, warranties and alleged duty to warn could not expand Connect's obligations beyond the contract, and the plaintiffs failed to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Concerning Building and Construction Contract, Australian Consumer Law Representations, Implied Terms and Warranties / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment and verdict for the defendant with costs.
Legal Topics
['implied Terms' 'australian Consumer Law Ss 18 and 60' 'false or Misleading Representations About Services' 'contractual Variation' 'design Services for Electrical Infrastructure' 'duty to Warn' 'loss and Causation']
['building and Construction' 'contract Law' 'consumer Law'] ['implied Terms' 'australian Consumer Law Ss 18 and 60' 'false or Misleading Representations About Services' 'contractual Variation' 'design Services for Electrical Infrastructure' 'duty to Warn' 'loss and Causation']

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

Civil Proceeding Concerning Building and Construction Contract, Australian Consumer Law Representations, Implied Terms and Warranties / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether statements in the November 2015 Offer Document were actionable misleading or deceptive representations under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law or gave rise to implied representations or warranties requiring Connect to undertake physical survey work such as potholing or trenching.' 'Whether any warranty under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law or implied contractual term required Connect to provide services beyond the scope of the written contract, including physical survey or inspection work.' 'Whether the November 2017 redesign arrangement was a stand-alone contract or a variation of the 2015 Agreement, and whether the exclusion of survey work continued to apply.' 'Whether provision of the 2017 Amended Design Plans impliedly represented that the route was feasible, suitable and could be implemented without further physical verification.' 'Whether Connect failed to warn that potholing or inspections might be desirable before preparing the Design Plan.' 'Whether the plaintiffs proved loss caused by any act or omission of Connect.']

Ratio Decidendi

Connect was entitled to judgment because the parties' contractual arrangements made clear that Connect was engaged to provide Level 3 ASP design services and certification, not physical survey work such as potholing or trenching. The 2015 Agreement expressly excluded survey work, the 2015 and 2017 design plans contained repeated warnings that existing services had to be verified before construction, and the 2017 redesign was a variation of the 2015 Agreement so the exclusion continued to apply. In that context the pleaded express and implied representations, warranties and alleged duty to warn could not expand Connect's obligations beyond the contract, and the plaintiffs failed to...

Court Disposition

Judgment and verdict for the defendant with costs.

Orders

  • ['That there be judgment and verdict for the defendant.' "That the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs."]