8 Oct 2020
Cl 27 did not prevent the Pauls from cancelling; Jade's unjustified suspension of work and refusal to return unless disputed invoices were paid objectively amounted to repudiation and substantially reduced the contract's benefit to the Pauls, so cancellation under CCLA ss 36–37 was valid.
5 Aug 2020
Schedule 44 did not substantially comply with s 21(3) of the Construction Contracts Act 2002 because the Variations and Contra Charges sections failed to indicate the manner of calculation and reasons for significant deductions (notably new multi-million dollar contra charges and delay claims lacking specific breakdown or identifiable document references); taken as a whole Schedule 44 was invalid, therefore no valid payment schedule was provided, Fletcher remained liable to pay the claimed amount and Spotless was entitled to serve notice of intention to suspend and to suspend works; Fletcher'…
30 Apr 2020
There was a serious issue to be tried as to whether PS44 complied with s21(3) CCA, but on balance of convenience and overall justice the court ordered Spotless to lift its suspension provided FCC secured the disputed amount of PC44 by depositing $2,067,715.86 (excluding GST) with a stakeholder to be held interest‑bearing pending further order.
3 Sept 2014
Apply the contract's express allocation of risk and variation valuation procedures: weather-related time costs are presumptively borne by the contractor under the special conditions; a variation relaxing specification does not alone create entitlement to time-related costs where valuation and notice procedures were not complied with; where the principal's default (failure to obtain consents) caused suspension the principal must pay; unreasonable deductions from certified payments attract contractual interest under an objective reasonableness test.