ABAX Contracting Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1205


Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Case Name: 

ABAX Contracting Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council

Medium Neutral Citation: 

[2015] NSWLEC 1205

Hearing Date(s): 

Conciliation conference on 2 June 2015

Date of Orders:

2 June 2015

Decision Date: 

2 June 2015

Jurisdiction: 

Class 1

Before: 

Brown C

Decision: 

See (5) below

Catchwords: 

SUBDIVISION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders

Legislation Cited: 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Land and Environment Court Act 1979

Category: 

Principal judgment

Parties: 

ABAX Contracting Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Pittwater Council (Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel:
Mr Andrew Gough, solicitor (Applicant)
Mr T. Naylor, solicitor (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Storey & Gough (Applicant)
King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent)

File Number(s): 

10466 of 2015

Publication Restriction: 

No

JUDGMENT

  1. COMMISSIONER: This is an appeal against the refusal at Development Application No: 0209/14 for the subdivision of land at 2 Fern Creek Road, Warriewood.

  2. In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  3. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  4. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  5. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

    …………….

    G T Brown

    Commissioner of the Court

    10466 of 2015 (s34O) 04.06.2015 (6.77 KB, pdf) of 2015 gtb (C) (124 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
ABAX Contracting Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2015] NSWLEC 1205
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1205
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ABAX Contracting Pty Ltd, a contractor, brought proceedings against the Pittwater Council, a local council, over a dispute concerning the terms of a contract for the construction of a wastewater treatment plant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the Council's termination of the contract and the subsequent claims made by ABAX for unliquidated damages, interest, and costs. ABAX alleged that the Council's termination was unjust and that it was entitled to compensation for work performed and losses incurred as a result of the termination. The Council, on the other hand, maintained that the termination was justified and that ABAX had failed to meet contractual obligations.

The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the Council had valid grounds for terminating the contract and, if so, the extent of ABAX's entitlement to damages. The court examined the contract's termination clause, the circumstances leading to the termination, and the applicable legal principles regarding termination and damages. The court also needed to consider whether ABAX's claims were reasonable and supported by evidence.

The court found that the Council had valid grounds for terminating the contract based on breaches by ABAX. It held that ABAX's claims for unliquidated damages were not substantiated, as the evidence did not support the extent of the losses claimed. The court further ruled that ABAX was not entitled to interest or costs. Consequently, ABAX's claims were dismissed, and the Council was not required to pay any damages, interest, or costs to ABAX.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (5) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.