Samir Batshon v Migliorino & Associates Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] NSWIRComm 271

Samir Batshon v Migliorino & Associates Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] NSWIRComm 271

The applicant failed to prove, on the evidence, that the contract was on a cost plus basis, and failed to establish the existence of any unfairness or wrongdoing by the respondents. The written contract was found to be for a fixed sum, and there was insufficient evidence of additional costs incurred. Relief under s106 was not warranted as the applicant's evidence was inconsistent, unreliable, and uncorroborated by documentary proof. The application was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contracts' 'building Contracts' 'contract Termination' 'costs Plus Vs Fixed Price Contracts' 'evidence of Contract Terms' 'relief Under S106 of Industrial Relations Act']
['industrial Law' 'contracts'] ['unfair Contracts' 'building Contracts' 'contract Termination' 'costs Plus Vs Fixed Price Contracts' 'evidence of Contract Terms' 'relief Under S106 of Industrial Relations Act']

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

Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the building contract was on a cost plus 10% margin basis or a fixed price basis' 'Whether the contract or arrangement was unfair, harsh, unconscionable, or contrary to the public interest under s106' 'Whether the applicant is entitled to further payments or compensation including builder’s margin and bank guarantee' 'Whether adequate proof of costs incurred was provided']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove, on the evidence, that the contract was on a cost plus basis, and failed to establish the existence of any unfairness or wrongdoing by the respondents. The written contract was found to be for a fixed sum, and there was insufficient evidence of additional costs incurred. Relief under s106 was not warranted as the applicant's evidence was inconsistent, unreliable, and uncorroborated by documentary proof. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'The parties have liberty to approach within 28 days in relation to the appropriate order for costs if unable to agree.']