Grandview Pty Ltd v Bacon [2021] NSWCATAP 83

Grandview Pty Ltd v Bacon [2021] NSWCATAP 83

The Tribunal did not err in finding Mr Szatow was a party to the First Contract nor in finding that contract to be for the whole of the works; there was no error of law in the assessment of quantum as allowance for betterment was neither raised nor proven; the liability apportionment between Grandview, Mr Szatow, and Mr Reading was appropriate; and the appellants are liable for two thirds of the unpaid variations as found.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['identity of Parties' 'terms of Contract' 'damages' 'betterment' 'apportionment' 'contribution Between Builders' 'unpaid Variations']
['building and Construction Law' 'contract Law'] ['identity of Parties' 'terms of Contract' 'damages' 'betterment' 'apportionment' 'contribution Between Builders' 'unpaid Variations']

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 Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Szatow was a party to the First Contract' 'Whether the First Contract was for the whole of the works or merely consultancy services' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in quantum assessment by failing to account for betterment' 'Whether liability should be apportioned between the contractors as found' 'Whether appellants were liable for unpaid variations to Mr Reading']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in finding Mr Szatow was a party to the First Contract nor in finding that contract to be for the whole of the works; there was no error of law in the assessment of quantum as allowance for betterment was neither raised nor proven; the liability apportionment between Grandview, Mr Szatow, and Mr Reading was appropriate; and the appellants are liable for two thirds of the unpaid variations as found.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'If any party desires to make an application for costs of the appeal: (a) that party is to so inform the other parties within 14 days of the date of these reasons; (b) the applicant for costs is to lodge with the Appeal Panel and serve on the respondent to the costs application any...