C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 154

C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 154

The plaintiff's claim for Building C failed because the parties' informal dealings established a contract for procurement and fabrication of steel soldiers, but left the timing and quantity of fabrication for Building C to Metropolitan's discretion; Metropolitan did not provide a direction to fabricate, and thus C&V was not entitled to recover for unrequested fabrication. For Building B, a contract existed for fabrication on an hourly rates basis per C&V's quoted standard rates, with C&V entitled to workshop usage and consumables charges per contract, but not to administration or GST components; quantum of reasonable hours and charges to be resolved by referral if parties cannot agree.

Parties
Plaintiff: C&V Engineering Services Pty Ltd; Defendant: Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Claim for breach of contract in respect of Building C dismissed; Claim for breach of contract in respect of Building B succeeds, quantum to be agreed or referred for determination.
Legal Topics
Building and Construction Contracts, Implied Terms, Quantum Meruit, Payment Disputes, Damages, Variation Claims
Contract Law Construction Law Building and Construction Contracts Implied Terms Quantum Meruit Payment Disputes Damages 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C&V Engineering Services Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the terms of the Building B and Building C contracts between the parties?
  2. 2 Whether C&V was contracted to supply and fabricate (not only supply) steel soldiers for Building C?
  3. 3 What labour rates and charges applied to works performed by C&V, and were they reasonable?

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim for Building C failed because the parties' informal dealings established a contract for procurement and fabrication of steel soldiers, but left the timing and quantity of fabrication for Building C to Metropolitan's discretion; Metropolitan did not provide a direction to fabricate, and thus C&V was not entitled to recover for unrequested fabrication. For Building B, a contract existed for fabrication on an hourly rates basis per C&V's quoted standard rates, with C&V entitled to workshop usage and consumables charges per contract, but not to administration or GST components; quantum of reasonable hours and charges to be resolved by referral if parties cannot agree.

Court Disposition

Claim for breach of contract in respect of Building C dismissed; Claim for breach of contract in respect of Building B succeeds, quantum to be agreed or referred for determination.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim for Building C dismissed.
  • Plaintiff's claim for Building B succeeds; quantum of damages to be agreed or referred for determination, per directions to follow.