Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 29th September 2006
    Lucindole P/L v Homer & Jim’s Painting Service [2006] NSWCTTT 544
    LEGISLATION: Home Building Act ISSUES:  Recovery of moneys by contractor against sub-contractor for incomplete and defective work
  • 19th September 2006
    Falgat Constructions P/L v Equity Australia Corp P/L [2006] NSWCA 259
    BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS - Progress payments - Payment claims - Whether successive payment claims, claiming the same amount, can be served - Payment schedules - Time limit for provision of payment schedules - Whether adjudication application can be made if payment schedule provided outside the time limit - Whether s.109X of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) applies to provision of payment schedule to a corporation - Effect of s.29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) - Whether "provide" means anything different from "serve" in the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999, and is governed by s.31 of that Act.  LEGISLATION CITED: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s.29 - Building Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), SS.13, 14, 15, 17 and 31 - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s.109X - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s.160
  • 18th September 2006
    Bitannia P/L v Parkline Constructions P/L (No. 2) [2006] NSWCA 255
    RESTITUTION – prior to the appeal Appellant agreed to pay the amount of the judgment debt to the Respondent on certain conditions – appeal successful – order made to repay money in terms not inconsistent with the agreement
  • 14th September 2006
    Gateway Fence Installation P/L v Amstruct P/L (Home Building) [2006] NSWCTTT 450
    LEGISLATION:  Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
  • 7th September 2006
    Melville Dundas Ltd v. Hotel Corporation Of Edinburgh Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSOH_136
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In this case, the court drew a distinction between settlement agreements that are independent of an underlying construction contract and settlement agreements that merely determine sums that are due under a construction contract. Withholding notices under the HGCRA need only be given in the latter case.Court of Session, Outer House, ScotlandLord Drummond YoungHotel Corporation of Edinburgh Limited (“HCEL”) are the owners of the Sheraton Hotel in Edinburgh. Melville Dundas Limited (“MDL”) are building contractors, who were employed by HCEL to carry out the internal fit out of the Sheraton Hotel. Following completion of the work by MDL, various defects emerged in the work that had been carried out. The most significant of these...
  • 6th September 2006
    Kell & Rigby P/L v Flurrie P/L [2006] NSWSC 906
    REAL PROPERTY – Land under Torrens Title – Caveats – BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS – Residential Building Contracts – in what circumstances can residential building contract create caveatable interest - Home Building Act 1989, s 7D – whether s 7D(3)(c) defines terms of permissible charge or event precedent to enforceability – whether judgments obtained by registration of adjudication certificates under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act are judgments that payments of moneys due under the contract be made within s 7D(3)(c) – whether caveatable interest can be created by estoppel when creation by contract prohibited.  ACTS CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3, 8, 9, 11, 16, 32 - Building Services Corporation Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (NSW) - Commercial Arbitration...
  • 5th September 2006
    John Holland v RTA [2006] NSWSC 874
    BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION - where practical completion achieved - where contract provides for partial release of security at principal's discretion - whether principal entitled to retain all security until amount owing in final payment schedule paid - whether principal has a duty to act in good faith or reasonably - whether principal complied - where contract provides for superintendent's assessment of final claims at expiration of defects liability period - whether void by s 34 of Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999  ACTS CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
  • 3rd September 2006
    Galaxy Construction & Dev. Group P/L v Clarke & Sons Plumbing (Home Building) [2006] NSWCTTT 422
    LEGISLATION: Home Building Act 1989 (‘the Act’). - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (‘the Security of Payment Act’).
  • 1st September 2006
    Cant Contracting P/L v Casella & Anor [2006] QSC 242
    BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – RECOVERY ON QUANTUM MERUIT – IN GENERAL – statutory right of debt recovery under s 19 Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where no payment schedule delivered – unlicensed builder – whether statutory right of recovery is qualified by s 42 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) - Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 10, s 17, s 18, s 19 - Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld), s 42, s 43 - Brodyn Pty Ltd t/as Time Cost and Quality [2004] NSWCA 394, cited -  Lucas Stuart Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2005] NSWSC 840, cited
  • 1st September 2006
    F K Gardner & Sons Pty Ltd v Dimin Pty Ltd [2006] QSC 243
    CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – Whether applicant is a person to whom s 17 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act (Qld) (2004) applies -  Building and Construction Industry Payments Act (Qld) (2004), s 7, s 8, s 10, s 12, s 17, s 18, s 19 Trade Practices Act 1974, s 52, s 87 -  Beckhaus v Brewarrina Council (2002) NSWSC 960 Walter Construction Group Ltd v CPL (Surry Hills) Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 266