El-Bayeh v Bayeh t/as JARS Engineering & Contracting Services [2017] NSWSC 322

El-Bayeh v Bayeh t/as JARS Engineering & Contracting Services [2017] NSWSC 322

The plaintiff failed to prove the defendant breached any contractual obligation or duty of care regarding the timing of applications for approvals or the progress of construction, as any delay resulted from the plaintiff's express instructions and actions. The defendant's obligation was limited to exercising reasonable care and skill, which was discharged. Accordingly, there was no cause of action for damages, and the proceedings should be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Contract / Equity Technology and Construction List / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['project Management of Construction' 'implied Contractual Terms' 'exercise of Reasonable Care and Skill' 'statute of Limitations' 'admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'damages for Loss of Chance']
['contract' 'equity' 'construction Law'] ['project Management of Construction' 'implied Contractual Terms' 'exercise of Reasonable Care and Skill' 'statute of Limitations' 'admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'damages for Loss of Chance']

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

Contract / Equity Technology and Construction List / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in project management' 'Whether defendant should have procured plaintiff to apply for relevant consents earlier' 'Whether defendant caused delay to project' 'Whether the claim is statute barred' 'Admissibility of expert report on damages' 'Whether plaintiff had proved damage by loss of chance to lease premises earlier']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove the defendant breached any contractual obligation or duty of care regarding the timing of applications for approvals or the progress of construction, as any delay resulted from the plaintiff's express instructions and actions. The defendant's obligation was limited to exercising reasonable care and skill, which was discharged. Accordingly, there was no cause of action for damages, and the proceedings should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Proceedings dismissed' "Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs"]