Parkview v Multi-Formwork [2009] NSWSC 547

Parkview v Multi-Formwork [2009] NSWSC 547

On the plaintiff's unrebutted evidence, there was no entitlement to the additional $150,000 claimed by the first defendant because it was inconsistent with the express contract terms requiring written variations and was first raised only after the first defendant ceased work. The evidence also established defective and incomplete works requiring rectification by the plaintiff, so final relief was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Building and Construction Contract Claim Following an Adjudication Determination / Final Hearing; Defendants Failed to Appear
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['security of Payment Adjudication' 'final Determination Under S 32' 'contract Price and Variations' 'defective and Incomplete Works' 'rectification Costs' 'non Appearance at Hearing']
['building and Construction' 'contract Law'] ['security of Payment Adjudication' 'final Determination Under S 32' 'contract Price and Variations' 'defective and Incomplete Works' 'rectification Costs' 'non Appearance at Hearing']

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

Building and Construction Contract Claim Following an Adjudication Determination / Final Hearing; Defendants Failed to Appear

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant was entitled to an additional contract sum of $150,000 said to arise from an oral variation.' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover for defective and incomplete works performed by or left by the defendants.' "What final accounting of the parties' rights should be made after the adjudication determination."]

Ratio Decidendi

On the plaintiff's unrebutted evidence, there was no entitlement to the additional $150,000 claimed by the first defendant because it was inconsistent with the express contract terms requiring written variations and was first raised only after the first defendant ceased work. The evidence also established defective and incomplete works requiring rectification by the plaintiff, so final relief was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Orders made in accordance with the short minutes of order signed, dated and placed with the papers.' 'The exhibits can be returned.' 'Orders directed to be entered forthwith.']