Shorten v David Hurst Constructions Pty Ltd (ACN 107 042 688) [2008] NSWCA 134
Section 7(2)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) excludes only contracts for residential building work on that part of premises in which the contracting party resides or proposes to reside. It does not apply where the contract is for building multiple units, only one of which is to be used by the party as a residence. The ordinary meaning of the provision, as confirmed by legislative history and Minister’s Second Reading Speech, does not allow the exclusion to apply to the whole contract in such cases.
- Parties
- Appellant: Richard William Shorten; Appellant: Lorraine Shorten; Respondent: David Hurst Constructions Pty Ltd (ACN 107 042 688)
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 June 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal, Decision on Appeal From Summary Judgment in Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Building Contracts, Statutory Exclusion, Use of Extrinsic Materials in Statutory Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Richard William Shorten
Appellant
Lorraine Shorten
Appellant
David Hurst Constructions Pty Ltd (ACN 107 042 688)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal, Decision on Appeal From Summary Judgment in Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s 7(2)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) excludes from the Act a construction contract for multiple residential units where the party intends to reside in one unit
- 2 Proper construction and application of s 7(2)(b) with respect to mixed-use contracts and communication of intention to reside
Ratio Decidendi
Section 7(2)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) excludes only contracts for residential building work on that part of premises in which the contracting party resides or proposes to reside. It does not apply where the contract is for building multiple units, only one of which is to be used by the party as a residence. The ordinary meaning of the provision, as confirmed by legislative history and Minister’s Second Reading Speech, does not allow the exclusion to apply to the whole contract in such cases.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment