Legal Research
Cases
ABB Engineering Construction Pty Limited v Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited

ABB Engineering Construction Pty Limited v Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited

Link copied

Case Copied 24 September 2003 61 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: ABB Engineering Construction Pty Limited v Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited [2003] NSWSC 867

HEARING DATE(S): 12/09/03, 16/09/03 (further submissions)

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 September 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division
Technology and Construction List

JUDGMENT OF: Einstein J

DECISION: Short minutes to be brought in.

CATCHWORDS: Principles - Interest - Costs - Judgment for causes of action abandoned

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act
Supreme Court Rules

CASES CITED: Abigroup v Peninsula (No 2) [2001] NSWSC 1016
Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873
Australian Trade Commission v Disktravel [2000] FCA 62
Bennett v Jones [1977] 2 NSWLR 355
BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) [1983] 2 AC 352
Ciavarella v Balmer (1983) 153 CLR 438
Council of the City of Sydney v Woodward [2000] NSWCA 201
Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4
Dodds Family Investments Pty Ltd v Lane Industries Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 261
Doric Products Pty Ltd v Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 282
Falkner v Bourke (1990) 19 NSWLR 574
Fexuto Pty Ltd v Bosnjak Holdings Pty Ltd (No 3) (1998) 30 ACSR 20
Heckenberg v Delaforce (No. 2) [2000] NSWCA 254
HomeOwners Insurance Pty Ltd v Job (1983) 2 ANZ Ins Cas 60-535
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc (1986) ATPR 40-748
LMI v Baulderstone (No.2) [2002] NSWSC 72
Madden as Official Liquidator of Aquanaut Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) [2001] NSWSC 1051
Mobile Innovations Ltd v Vodafone Pacific Ltd [2003] NSWSC 423
NRMA Ltd v Morgan (No 3) [1999] NSWSC 768
Orion Pet Products Pty Ltd v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Vic) Inc (No 2) [2002] FCA 967
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589
Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Limited v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234
Smeaton Hanscomb & Co Ltd v Sassoon I Setty Son & Co (No 2) [1953] 1 WLR 1481
Trade Practices Commission v Nicholas Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 3) (1979) 28 ALR 201
United Australia Limited v Barclays Bank Limited [1941] AC 1
Waters v PC Henderson (Aust) Pty Ltd ( Kirby P, Mahoney and Priestley JJA, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 6 July 1994, unreported)

PARTIES :
ABB Engineering Construction Pty Limited (Plaintiffs)
Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 55033/98

COUNSEL: Mr M Orlov (Plaintiff)
Mr F Corsaro SC (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Abbott Tout (Plaintiff)
Clayton Utz (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION LIST

Einstein J

Wednesday 24 September 2003

55033/98 ABB ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD v ABIGROUP CONTRACTORS PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

The applications before the court

1 A number of matters remain to be resolved following the delivery of a reserved judgment in the proceedings on 30 July 2003 [2003] NSW SC 265:

· ABB's claims to interest pursuant to section 94 of the Supreme Court Act;

· Abigroup’s claim for an order…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ABB Engineering Construction Pty Limited v Abigroup Contract... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWSC 867
Decision Date: 24 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ABB Engineering Construction Pty Limited v Abigroup Contractors Pty Limited was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, ABB, sought damages from the defendant, Abigroup, in relation to a construction contract. The dispute centred around the validity of certain contractual terms and the defendant's failure to perform specific obligations under the contract. The court was required to determine whether ABB was entitled to damages and, if so, the amount of those damages, as well as the interest on any awarded damages and the costs associated with the litigation.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the contractual terms were valid and enforceable, and if the defendant had breached the contract. Additionally, the court had to decide on the appropriate interest rate to apply to any awarded damages, and the allocation of costs between the parties. The court was required to consider the principles of contract law, specifically focusing on the interpretation of the contract terms, the nature of the breaches, and the applicable legal standards for calculating interest and costs.

In its judgment, the court found that certain causes of action brought by the plaintiff had been abandoned, and as a result, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover costs associated with those causes of action. The court also determined the appropriate interest rate to be applied to any awarded damages, taking into account the principles of equitable compensation and the nature of the contract. The court held that the defendant was liable for a portion of the plaintiff's costs, but not all, and provided a detailed rationale for the allocation of costs between the parties.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff damages in the amount of $4,558,534.00, together with interest at a rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of the judgment until the date of satisfaction. The defendant was also ordered to pay a specified proportion of the plaintiff's costs, reflecting the partial success of the plaintiff in the litigation.

Orders