Cable (1956) Ltd v Hutcherson Bros Pty Ltd [1969] HCA 37

Cable (1956) Ltd v Hutcherson Bros Pty Ltd [1969] HCA 37

On the proper construction of the articles of agreement, including the agreed drawings and the limited incorporation of the specification, the respondent promised no more than to carry out the specified work in a workmanlike manner. The agreed ring-beam foundation design had been approved and made part of the contract works, and the respondent did not undertake responsibility for the adequacy of that design or for piled foundations. Because the arbitrator found the work was done in accordance with the plans and in a workmanlike manner, the contractor was not liable for the subsidence problem and the Supreme Court's negative answer was correct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in a Building Contract Arbitration Dispute / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a Judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal Division) Answering Questions in a Case Stated by an Arbitrator
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['construction of Building Contract' 'turnkey Tender Specification' 'contractor Responsibility for Design Adequacy' 'foundation Subsidence' 'case Stated by Arbitrator']
['contract Law' 'construction Law' 'arbitration'] ['construction of Building Contract' 'turnkey Tender Specification' 'contractor Responsibility for Design Adequacy' 'foundation Subsidence' 'case Stated by Arbitrator']

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 in a Building Contract Arbitration Dispute / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From a Judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (court of Appeal Division) Answering Questions in a Case Stated by an Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, on the true construction of the agreement, the contractor was obliged to design and erect bins and foundations sufficient to ensure that loaded bins were not adversely affected by subsidence caused by failure of the ground to support the intended ilmenite load.' 'Whether the incorporation of tender specifications referring to a "turnkey" proposition imposed responsibility on the contractor for the suitability or efficacy of the agreed foundation design.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the proper construction of the articles of agreement, including the agreed drawings and the limited incorporation of the specification, the respondent promised no more than to carry out the specified work in a workmanlike manner. The agreed ring-beam foundation design had been approved and made part of the contract works, and the respondent did not undertake responsibility for the adequacy of that design or for piled foundations. Because the arbitrator found the work was done in accordance with the plans and in a workmanlike manner, the contractor was not liable for the subsidence problem and the Supreme Court's negative answer was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']