Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Barnes [1938] HCA 65

Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Barnes [1938] HCA 65

Section 18 of the Contractors' Debts Act 1897 (NSW) does not impose an unrestricted personal liability on a contractor for the debts of a sub-contractor to workmen or tradesmen. Instead, it extends the procedural scheme of the Act, limiting the contractor's liability to the amount due or accruing due to the sub-contractor under the contract, and does not create an independent, unlimited liability. Precedent to the contrary is overruled, as it results in outcomes not intended by the statute.

Parties
Defendant: Concrete Constructions Pty. Ltd.; Plaintiff: William Henry Barnes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Contractors' Debts, Liability for Sub Contractor Debts, Statutory Construction, Precedent and Overruling
Construction Law Statutory Interpretation Contractors' Debts Liability for Sub Contractor Debts Statutory Construction Precedent and Overruling

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concrete Constructions Pty. Ltd.

Defendant

William Henry Barnes

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 18 of the Contractors' Debts Act 1897 (NSW) imposes an unrestricted personal liability on a contractor for the debts of a sub-contractor to workmen or tradesmen.
  2. 2 Whether a contractor is liable to pay for materials supplied to a sub-contractor when the contractor has already paid the sub-contractor.
  3. 3 Whether the established interpretation of s. 18 should be overruled.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 18 of the Contractors' Debts Act 1897 (NSW) does not impose an unrestricted personal liability on a contractor for the debts of a sub-contractor to workmen or tradesmen. Instead, it extends the procedural scheme of the Act, limiting the contractor's liability to the amount due or accruing due to the sub-contractor under the contract, and does not create an independent, unlimited liability. Precedent to the contrary is overruled, as it results in outcomes not intended by the statute.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Supreme Court discharged
  • Judgment for defendant with costs upon demurrer and cross-demurrer