STPG Constructions Pty Ltd v Multibuild Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 220

STPG Constructions Pty Ltd v Multibuild Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 220

The First Defendant repudiated the fixed price contract by insisting on a substantial increase and not performing unless accepted. The Plaintiff was not in substantial breach nor unwilling to perform, and is entitled to damages for loss of bargain. The misleading/deceptive conduct claim against the First Defendant succeeds, but does not yield further damages due to double counting. The claim against the Second Defendant fails as he was not personally liable under s 75B.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant in the sum of $982,636; claim against Second Defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'repudiation' 'loss of Bargain Damages' 'australian Consumer Law' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'section 75 B Accessorial Liability']
['contracts' 'consumer Law'] ['breach of Contract' 'repudiation' 'loss of Bargain Damages' 'australian Consumer Law' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'section 75 B Accessorial Liability']

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 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Proper construction of relevant contract provisions' 'Whether First Defendant repudiated the contract' 'Whether Plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform at termination' 'Entitlement to damages for loss of bargain' 'Whether conduct was misleading or deceptive under ACL' 'Section 75B accessorial liability of director']

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant repudiated the fixed price contract by insisting on a substantial increase and not performing unless accepted. The Plaintiff was not in substantial breach nor unwilling to perform, and is entitled to damages for loss of bargain. The misleading/deceptive conduct claim against the First Defendant succeeds, but does not yield further damages due to double counting. The claim against the Second Defendant fails as he was not personally liable under s 75B.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant in the sum of $982,636; claim against Second Defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant in the sum of $982,636, together with interest at the Court rates to be agreed or determined.' 'Dismiss the claim against the Second Defendant.' 'Direct the parties to seek to agree as to interest and costs.' 'Matter listed for directions at 9:30am on Friday...