Alphington Developments Pty Ltd v Amcor Pty Ltd (No 5)
[2023] VSC 637
•1 November 2023
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
COMMERCIAL LIST
S ECI 2017 00145
| ALPHINGTON DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 164 529 864) | Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim |
| v | |
| AMCOR PTY LTD (ACN 000 017 372) | Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim |
---
JUDGE: | Sloss J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2-5, 12, 16-19 March 2020 (Trial adjourned at parties’ request due to COVID-19 lockdown); (2021 Trial resumed) 2-4, 8-11, 15-17, 22-25 February, 1‑4, 9‑12, 15, 16 March, 12-15 April, 17, 18 May, 27 July 2021 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 1 November 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Alphington Developments Pty Ltd v Amcor Pty Ltd (No 5) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VSC 637 |
---
CONTRACT — Construction and interpretation — Notices — Contract provided for purchaser to recover costs from vendor for certain works undertaken at the land following issuance of a ‘UC’ notice addressing specified criteria — Valid ‘UC’ notice was a precursor to recovery of costs — Whether ‘UC’ notices issued were valid — Whether ‘UC’ notices satisfied criteria required to be addressed under the contract — Consideration of commercial purpose of ‘UC’ notices under the contract.
CONTRACT — Construction and interpretation — Contract provided for expert dispute resolution procedure in relation to objections to ‘UC’ notices — Parties subsequently amended contract by deleting dispute resolution procedure and requiring that the Court resolve questions relating to ‘UC’ notices in place of an expert — Role of the Court in resolving issues in respect of relevant ‘UC’ notices.
CONTRACT — Construction and interpretation — Breach of contract — Payment claims — Loss and damage — Alleged failure to pay costs properly and reasonably incurred in performance of works under contract — Entitlement to payment of outstanding claims — Contract embodied procedure for certification of invoices by approved quantity surveyor appointed by the parties — Whether items sought to be recovered as ‘Remediation Works’ ought to have been classified as other works — Whether plaintiff failed to prove amounts claimed were costs for ‘Remediation Works’ — Whether certifications by approved quantity surveyor conformed with contractual requirements.
CONTRACT — Breach of contract — Performance of contract — Compliance with contractual obligations — Whether plaintiff failed to use reasonable endeavours to minimise costs — Reasonable endeavours — Properly and reasonably incurred— Whether plaintiff procured works to be carried out cost effectively and to a reasonable commercial standard — Whether plaintiff disentitled from recovering its costs — Whether plaintiff’s approach to remediation was ad hoc and reactive — Whether plaintiff failed to devise comprehensive remediation strategy — Whether necessary to excavate all soil containing asbestos to remediate risks to human health and the environment — Whether capping solution should have been implemented — Whether plaintiff failed to competitively tender for works to be performed— Whether plaintiff failed to properly manage stockpiles — Whether plaintiff was required to consider any, and if so what, changes to the Master Plan.
CONTRACT — Failure of contractual mechanism — Contract provided for purchaser to recover costs from vendor for undertaking certain works following certification of works by approved quantity surveyor — Precondition to recovery of costs for works was that the purchaser had issued a ‘UC’ notice to the vendor addressing specified criteria prior to undertaking relevant works — Parties subsequently amended contract by deleting dispute resolution procedure and requiring that the Court resolve questions relating to ‘UC’ notices in place of an expert — Whether contractual mechanism for the recovery of costs failed thereby requiring the Court to create a substitute mechanism to allow the purchaser to recover costs — Whether certification by the approved quantity surveyor was an essential and indispensable part of contractual bargain.
CONTRACT — Implied terms — Implied duty of co‑operation — Implied duty of good faith and fair dealing — Alleged pursuit of self‑interest in breach of implied terms — Whether alleged implied terms can stand alongside the express terms in the contract — Whether breach of implied terms created liability for payment outside of contractual process for payment.
CONTRACT — Quantum meruit — Restitution — Unjust enrichment — Contract created a process for purchaser to recover costs from vendor for certain works undertaken at the land — Whether the amendment of the contract entailed the failure of the contractual process — Whether the purchaser failed to follow the contractual process — Whether restitutionary claim would subvert the allocation of risk under the contract.
CONTRACT — Construction — Whether plaintiff entitled to costs of remediating unidentified contamination in Riparian Zone — Where Riparian Zone was encompassed within Master Plan but no ‘use’ was specified.
CONTRACT — Separate contract — Scope of ‘Demolition Works’ limited by reference to the Delta Contract — Remediation of soil underneath demolished building — Whether plaintiff entitled to recover costs of works to demolish structures not identified for demolition in Delta Contract — Whether ‘Unidentified Contamination’ excludes unidentified contamination discovered during the course of procuring additional demolition works outside of Delta Contract — Whether defendant must pay costs of remediating unidentified contamination beneath structure not expected to be demolished.
CONTRACT — Counterclaim — Interest — Contract interpretation — Purchaser’s default in payment of money — Agreement to defer payment of penalty interest — Whether a valid demand was made — Whether debt was due and payable — Whether penalty interest under agreement should be calculated on a simple or compounding basis — Alternatively, interest pursuant to statute — Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 58.
EVIDENCE — Failure to call witnesses — Failure to produce documents — Inferences — Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298.
EXPERT EVIDENCE — Court appointed expert — Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 65M.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr M S Osborne QC (2020 only) Mr D V Aghion Mr A P Downie Ms G M Douglas Mr N O J Cozens Mr C J Hender (2021 only) | Kalus Kenny Intelex Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Mr A A Monichino QC Ms K A O’Gorman Ms F Hudgson | Gilbert + Tobin (prior to 21 December 2022) King & Wood Mallesons (from 21 December 2022) |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
Background to the proceeding.................................................................................................... 1
Summary of the rival claims in the proceeding...................................................................... 10
Glenvill’s cascading claims seek to recover approximately $31 million from Amcor 10
The gist of Amcor’s Defence and Counterclaim........................................................... 18
Summary of conclusions................................................................................................................ 25
The UC Notices given by Glenvill did not satisfy SC 11.5(a) and were not valid............. 26
Glenvill engaged GHD as its environmental consultant and later procured GHD’s appointment as ‘Environmental Consultant’ under the APM Contract....... 26
First discovery of asbestos at the Alphington site........................................................ 28
GHD was not provided with the full suite of contractual documentation and nor was it given any proper instruction about its contractual role as ‘Environmental Consultant’ under the APM Contract, what it entailed, and how it was to be performed.......... 30
The Master Plan for the purposes of the APM Contract was, at all relevant times, the Master Plan set out in Annexure B to the APM Contract............................................. 31
The Annexure B Master Plan remained throughout the benchmark against which Amcor’s liability to pay was to be assessed....................................................................... 32
The role of the Environmental Consultant under the APM Contract was a quite different role to GHD’s role as Glenvill’s environmental consultant.................................... 32
In performing its role as Environmental Consultant under the APM Contract, and in forming its opinions under SC 11.5(a)(ii)(B), GHD allowed itself to be influenced by the views of others................................................................................................................... 35
The evident purpose of the UC Notices to be given under SC 11.5........................... 37
Summary of the fate of Glenvill’s UC Notices........................................................................ 41
a......... UC Notice #1 (c.11 June 2014).............................................................................. 41
b......... UC Notice #1 - Revised (c.28 October 2014)...................................................... 45
c......... UC Notice #2 (c.19 March 2015).......................................................................... 49
d......... UC PCB Notice (c.5 May 2015)............................................................................ 58
e......... UC Notice #3 (c.18 June 2015).............................................................................. 59
f.......... UC Pulp Substitution Notice (c.22 June 2015)................................................... 67
g......... UC F6 Building Notice (c.26 June 2015)............................................................. 70
i.......... UC Notice #4 (c.6 October 2015).......................................................................... 72
i.......... UC Notice #4 – Addendum (c.2 November 2015)............................................ 84
j.......... UC Notice December 2015 (14 December 2015)................................................ 92
k......... UC Notice #5 (c.17 March 2016).......................................................................... 96
l.......... UC Notice #6 (c.17 June 2016).............................................................................. 97
m........ UC Notice #7 (c.24 May 2017)............................................................................ 110
n......... UC Notice #8 (c.11 August 2017)...................................................................... 135
The s 65M process whereby the Court appointed Mr Phil Sinclair as a s 65M expert.... 143
The invalidity of the UC Notices cannot be remedied by the s 65M process......... 147
Glenvill’s ‘cascading’ claims.................................................................................................... 154
Progress claims submitted by Glenvill to Amcor................................................................. 154
Montlaur was never provided with Deed of Variation No 1............................................. 154
The ‘Montlaur certifications’ did not conform with SC 11.3(b)(ii) and were ineffective to enliven any obligation on the part of Amcor as Vendor under SC 11.3 to pay 156
The ‘Montlaur certifications’ were not ‘binding’........................................................ 157
The ’Montlaur certifications’ do not have any ‘provisional status’......................... 157
It is not open to Glenvill to seek to have Montlaur issue fresh certifications following resolution by the Court of the SC 11.5 issues.................................................. 157
Glenvill’s ‘failure of the contractual mechanism’ plea seeks to have the Court determine the amount payable by Amcor pursuant to SC 11.2, in lieu of the amounts certified by Montlaur............................................................................................................................................ 159
What is the alleged failure of the contractual mechanism?....................................... 160
Amcor’s response............................................................................................................ 163
The contractual mechanism did not fail....................................................................... 164
Glenvill alleges a breach of SC 17.7 and implied terms (co-operation and good faith and fair dealing).............................................................................................................................. 166
Glenvill’s claim to recover monies by way of a ‘quantum meruit’................................... 172
Amcor’s Counterclaim............................................................................................................. 174
Issue 26: Riparian Zone................................................................................................... 175
Glenvill’s claimed entitlement to indemnification for costs of remediating Unidentified Contamination in the Riparian Zone................................................................ 179
Issue 27: F6 Building, 1954 Boiler House (& East-West Building)............................ 191
Consideration and disposition of the rival contentions concerning the 1954 Boiler House................................................................................................................................ 194
Consideration and disposition of the rival contentions concerning the F6 buildings 198
The Administration – (East/West) Building......................................................................... 200
Consideration and observations on the rival contentions concerning the Administration – (East/West) Building.......................................................................................... 201
Issue 28: Amcor’s counterclaim for interest................................................................. 203
The Trial conducted in 2020 and 2021........................................................................................ 210
Issues to be determined............................................................................................................ 211
Preliminary matters....................................................................................................................... 211
The relevant Master Plan......................................................................................................... 211
Evidential considerations......................................................................................................... 212
Section 136 rulings........................................................................................................... 212
Relevant persons not called by Glenvill....................................................................... 213
Other ‘Relevant persons’................................................................................................ 232
Amcor’s Jones v Dunkel submission............................................................................ 237
The records that Glenvill did not adduce.................................................................... 241
Jones v Dunkel findings............................................................................................................. 245
Background..................................................................................................................................... 245
The Amcor paper mill site at Alphington............................................................................. 245
Amcor entities take steps to prepare for a sale of the Alphington site............................. 246
Sale of the site in June 2013...................................................................................................... 246
Engagement of external contractors and consultants.......................................................... 250
Glenvill commenced this proceeding in June 2017.............................................................. 254
Work undertaken by Ramsay in advance of the sale.............................................................. 255
Detailed site investigation (DSI) performed by Ramsay in 2011....................................... 256
The outcomes of the soil assessment undertaken for the DSI............................................ 265
Ramsay 2011 cost estimate for remediation of hotspots..................................................... 268
Ramsay’s March 2013 estimate for remediation of Alpha Partners/Glenvill’s mixed-use development proposal and update of the Ramsay 2011 hotspots estimate............ 270
Preliminary remediation cost estimate for Alpha Partners/Glenvill’s proposed development plan........................................................................................................................ 270
Ramsay’s Preliminary Remediation Cost Estimate re Alpha Partners/Glenvill’s request................................................................................................................................ 274
Update of Ramsay’s February 2011 ‘hotspot’ remediation estimate....................... 274
Ramsay DSI and the preliminary remediation cost estimate for Alpha Partners/Glenvill’s development plan are incorporated by reference in the APM Contract................. 275
Ramsay’s June 2013 Revised Preliminary Remediation Cost Estimate for Alpha Partners/Glenvill’s Development Plan........................................................................ 275
The APM Contract......................................................................................................................... 277
The Property was sold and purchased on an ‘As is, where is’ basis including ‘any and all Contamination’................................................................................................................ 280
Purchaser required to procure ‘Demolition Works’ and ‘Remediation Works’.............. 281
Vendor’s obligation to pay in respect of ‘Demolition Works’ and ‘Remediation Works’ 284
Discovery of ‘Unidentified Contamination’.......................................................................... 285
The ‘expert’ dispute resolution process....................................................................... 286
Infrastructure Works................................................................................................................ 287
Seeking planning approval...................................................................................................... 289
Settlement to proceed in stages............................................................................................... 291
Environmental matters............................................................................................................. 293
General provisions.................................................................................................................... 294
Entire understanding...................................................................................................... 294
Interest payable by the Purchaser................................................................................. 295
Observations on the contractual arrangements made between the parties..................... 295
Deed of Nomination...................................................................................................................... 296
Deed of Novation........................................................................................................................... 296
Amendment or variation of the contractual arrangements between the parties to the APM Contract...................................................................................................................................................... 296
Deed of Variation No 1............................................................................................................. 296
Deed of Variation No 2............................................................................................................. 298
Alleged informal agreement to vary the APM Contract by correspondence in mid-2015 299
The 2017 variation of the APM Contract by correspondence............................................. 304
Remediation works........................................................................................................................ 314
Relevant contractual provisions.............................................................................................. 315
Unidentified contamination (SC 11.5).................................................................................... 322
What are ‘the uses specified in the Master Plan’?................................................................ 328
‘The Land’.................................................................................................................................. 331
Lay witnesses called by Glenvill................................................................................................ 333
Evidence given by Mr Travers Nuttall....................................................................................... 333
Engagement of consultants by Glenvill................................................................................. 336
Montlaur as certifier........................................................................................................ 336
Prensa – Occupational hygienist................................................................................... 337
Ken Mival – Environmental auditor............................................................................. 338
Reeds – Land surveyors.................................................................................................. 339
Douglas Partners – Geotechnical Engineers................................................................ 339
Master Plan................................................................................................................................ 339
Adjustments to the Master Plan.............................................................................................. 343
Infrastructure Works................................................................................................................ 344
Progress of works on site......................................................................................................... 346
Nearmap image comparison of physical condition of the site with Delta’s Trade Cost Breakdowns.......................................................................................................... 347
Remediation works remaining to be undertaken....................................................... 351
Remediation undertaken following Delta’s discovery of Unidentified Contamination 353
How Unidentified Contamination was approached on site............................................... 354
Widespread nature of the asbestos contamination in the southern part of the site 356
Amcor engaged Golder as its environmental advisor............................................... 356
Technical workshops and interaction with Golder.............................................................. 357
Engagement of CSC Civil Constructions............................................................................... 359
GHD’s Draft CLR report dated June 2016............................................................................. 362
Engagement of EnviroPacific Services (EPS)........................................................................ 362
Status of the Environmental Audit at the Alphington site................................................. 365
Evidence given by Mr Craig Joel................................................................................................ 367
Appointment of Contour Town Planners.............................................................................. 368
Master Plan................................................................................................................................ 368
Involvement with Golder representatives............................................................................. 371
Evidence given by Mr Robert Ryan........................................................................................... 372
Evidence given by Mr Gregory Priest........................................................................................ 375
Evidence given by Mr Brent Scoble........................................................................................... 377
Evidence given by Mr Adrian Scott........................................................................................... 381
Evidence given by Mr Shayne Linke......................................................................................... 391
Role of GHD as Environmental Consultant............................................................................. 395
Francis John Mollica................................................................................................................. 396
Anne Whincup.......................................................................................................................... 397
Thomas Winship....................................................................................................................... 398
Work undertaken by GHD...................................................................................................... 398
The GHD Contingent Liability Range Report...................................................................... 415
GHD’s Draft CLR Report (June 2016)........................................................................... 415
Presence, location and nature of remaining Unidentified Contamination....................... 428
Contingent Liability Ranges.................................................................................................... 430
Evidence given by Ms Anne Whincup...................................................................................... 431
Glenvill engaged GHD as its environmental consultant in November 2013................... 432
Environmental Audit................................................................................................................ 441
Timeline of key GHD works undertaken on site................................................................. 445
Site Management Plan v Environmental Management Plan.................................... 470
Once asbestos impacted soil was discovered at the Alphington site in May 2014, emotive issues associated with the presence of asbestos were referenced by GHD as a factor relevant to the remediation works to be undertaken..................................... 472
The Master Plan............................................................................................................... 476
Meetings with Golder representatives......................................................................... 477
The asbestos decision flowchart/ aka ‘the decision tree’/ aka ‘the GHD asbestos rationale’................................................................................................................................ 481
Technical meetings with Golder.................................................................................... 490
CLR reports....................................................................................................................... 499
Further technical meetings with Golder representatives.......................................... 500
RAP 2017........................................................................................................................... 502
Assistance provided to Dr Beck.................................................................................... 511
Comment on costs of work performed by EPS........................................................... 511
Initial GHD sampling and testing during 2014 and 2015.......................................... 511
General response from Ms Whincup to issues raised by Mr Kluckow............................. 516
Reply to Kluckow comment that GHD lacked a Strategy /Methodology.............. 516
Golder became involved in mid-2015 – context of site during time of Golder involvement................................................................................................................................ 519
Context of remediation options developed and adopted for the site...................... 528
Preparation of GHD letter accompanying UC Notice #2.......................................... 531
Evidence given by Mr Thomas Winship................................................................................... 543
Validation report for Area 5A (May 2018)................................................................... 546
Validation report for Super Lot 3.2 and the House & Land Package (July 2017).. 550
Addendum report to the Validation Report for Super Lot 3.2 and the House & Land Package (November 2017).................................................................................................. 552
Final Validation Report for Area 6B (June 2018)......................................................... 556
2017 RAP........................................................................................................................... 563
Evidence given by Mr Frank Mollica......................................................................................... 566
GHD’s meetings with Golder representatives............................................................ 572
October-November 2015 technical meetings............................................................... 582
Presence of uncontrolled fill across the Alphington site – geotechnical issues were raised................................................................................................................................ 582
Meetings with the Environmental Auditor................................................................. 586
Contingent Liability Reports.......................................................................................... 587
GHD did not endorse JBS&G’s remediation strategy and forecast cost estimates for Unidentified Contamination.............................................................................. 594
The geotechnical report of 14 June 2016 which forms Annexure B to both the June 2016 Draft CLR and December 2016 CLR reports.............................................................. 594
Response to the Golder queries..................................................................................... 600
NEPM – Schedule B1....................................................................................................... 605
Basements – effect on remediation costs...................................................................... 611
Role of the occupational hygienist on site................................................................... 611
Evidence given by Mr Craig Eldridge........................................................................................ 612
Draft Geotechnical Desk Top Appraisal................................................................................ 613
Scenario 1 - Compact in situ (without any treatment) and leave undisturbed with a suitable capping layer of clean soils................................................................................ 615
Scenario 2 – Excavate, sort and then replace the fill soils under Level 1 supervision. 619
Geotechnical appraisal.................................................................................................... 619
Riparian Zone................................................................................................................... 621
Evidence given by Mr Cameron Hunter.................................................................................... 637
Overview of Prensa’s involvement at the Alphington site................................................. 638
Delta engaged Prensa to perform work....................................................................... 638
CSC Civil engaged Prensa.............................................................................................. 646
Glenvill engaged Prensa to support EPS with occupational hygiene services...... 647
Mr Hunter’s creation of the Technical Specification and input into the April 2017 Remediation Action Plan....................................................................................................................... 649
The Technical Specification............................................................................................ 649
The 2017 Remediation Action Plan............................................................................... 658
Mr Hunter’s commentary on Yanel Lara’s views and position......................................... 664
Response to Ms Lara’s criticism that GHD was not properly classifying material that could have been available for re-use on site............................................................... 664
Response to Ms Lara’s comments on the extent of asbestos contamination at the site 667
Response to Ms Lara’s comments regarding the hazardous nature of asbestos.... 669
Response to Ms Lara’s criticisms of GHD’s advice to use the AS4964 method of analysis................................................................................................................................ 670
Reply to the alternate strategy proposed by Ms Lara................................................ 673
Lay witnesses called by Amcor................................................................................................... 676
Evidence given by Mr Glenn Maskell....................................................................................... 676
Progress claims.......................................................................................................................... 678
Planning considerations on the site........................................................................................ 679
Appointment of Montlaur....................................................................................................... 680
Appointment of GHD (as Environmental Consultant under the Contract)..................... 681
Amcor’s continued engagement of Ramsay......................................................................... 682
Discovery of unidentified contamination.............................................................................. 682
Amcor’s input into the Glenvill remediation strategy........................................................ 686
Whether Amcor was looking for reasons not to pay........................................................... 688
Evidence given by Ms Yanel Lara............................................................................................... 689
Involvement at the Alphington site........................................................................................ 691
Asbestos in Soil Assessment flowchart.................................................................................. 696
Technical meeting with representatives of GHD, Glenvill, and Golder........................... 696
The gist of Ms Lara’s criticism of GHD’s approach............................................................. 697
Installation of the hoarding along Chandler Highway....................................................... 697
New asbestos management plan issued by GHD................................................................ 698
Reply to statements made by Mr Hunter.............................................................................. 699
Evidence given by Mr Roger Foenander................................................................................... 701
Evidence given by Mr Ian Matthew Kluckow......................................................................... 719
Prior involvement..................................................................................................................... 720
Expert witnesses in the proceeding............................................................................................ 732
Evidence given by Dr Peter Beck................................................................................................ 733
Evidence given by Dr Ian Swane................................................................................................ 733
Evidence given by Mr Stephen Bolt........................................................................................... 734
Evidence given by Mr Matthew Kritzler................................................................................... 735
Relevant statutory framework..................................................................................................... 736
Relevant statutory framework for occupational health and safety...................................... 738
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007.............................................................. 738
Relevant statutory framework for environmental protection and management............... 739
Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic)..................................................................................... 739
Environment protection principles............................................................................... 739
State environment protection policy............................................................................. 742
National Environment Protection Measure................................................................. 745
Environmental audits...................................................................................................... 748
Planning system mechanisms................................................................................................. 756
Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)............................................................................... 756
Direction No 1: Potentially Contaminated Land........................................................ 757
DSE General Practice Note: Potentially Contaminated Land................................... 759
City of Yarra: Amcor Site Design and Development Principles............................... 761
Yarra Planning Scheme................................................................................................... 764
The Environmental Audit Overlay............................................................................... 768
Other background materials.......................................................................................... 769
GHD’s Site Remediation Strategy (May 2014)...................................................................... 769
A.. Payment claims – special condition 11.3.............................................................................. 775
Issue 1:Is Glenvill entitled to payment of the outstanding claims totalling $30,992,925.45 (inclusive of GST) (the Outstanding Claims) by reason of the presentation by Glenvill of the invoices and certifications, referred to in SC 11.3(b) of the APM Contract?.......................... 775
Issue 4:Is the certification by Montlaur of progress claims 23 to 54 determinative of any issue between Glenvill and Amcor?....................................................................................... 775
The Montlaur certifications with respect to Progress Claims 23 to 54 (inclusive) were not binding.................................................................................................................. 777
Do the Montlaur certifications have any provisional status?................................... 783
Whether the s 65M expert appointed by the Court identified any ‘scope of work’ and if so, whether there is any evidence that enables the Court to quantify that scope 788
It is not open to Glenvill to seek to have Montlaur issue fresh certifications following resolution by the Court of the SC 11.5 issues.................................................. 789
Glenvill’s ‘failure of the contractual mechanism’ plea seeks to have the Court determine the amount payable by Amcor pursuant to SC 11.3, in lieu of the amounts certified by Montlaur............................................................................................................... 792
Issue 2:Does the $30,992,925.45 (inclusive of GST) claimed by Glenvill in relation to progress claims 23 to 54 include items defined as Remediation Works which ought properly to have been classified as: (a) Demolition Works…; (b) variations to Demolition Works…; (c) Consultants’ Works…; (d) works which were not Demolition Works, Remediation Works or Consultants’ Costs…, including works undertaken to address geotechnical issues at the APM site?.......................................................................................................................... 797
Issue 3:Has Glenvill failed to prove that the amounts claimed from Amcor in progress claims 23 to 54 were each costs for Remediation Work?............................................................. 797
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 797
Issue 2 as framed....................................................................................................................... 798
Issue 2 – Amcor’s submissions................................................................................................ 799
Issue 3 as framed....................................................................................................................... 806
Issue 3 – Amcor’s submissions................................................................................................ 807
(a)....... Glenvill failed to ensure that its contractors kept proper records................ 810
(b)...... The records that Glenvill elected not to adduce............................................. 822
(c)....... The witnesses that Glenvill elected not to call................................................ 824
(d)...... Informed estimation is not permitted............................................................... 827
Issues 2 and 3 – Glenvill’s submissions................................................................................. 829
Glenvill’s Revised Outstanding Claims Amount recognises the Demolition Works Cap and the Consultant’s Works Cap.............................................................................. 830
Allocation of costs between categories in Issue 2 – ‘Materials relied upon’ by Glenvill 832
Amcor’s closing address – Issues 2 and 3.............................................................................. 833
Glenvill’s closing address – Issues 2 and 3............................................................................ 836
Consideration and conclusion on Issues 2 and 3.................................................................. 836
B.. Compliance with special condition 11.2(b)......................................................................... 839
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 839
Issue 5: Performance of Glenvill’s obligations under SC 11.2(b) – did Glenvill ‘use reasonable endeavours to minimise the cost of the … Remediation Works’ and/or ‘procure … the Remediation Works … to be carried out cost effectively and to a reasonable commercial standard.’?.................................................................................................................................. 864
Issue 5 – Amcor’s submissions (overview)........................................................................... 865
Issue 5 – Glenvill’s response (overview)............................................................................... 876
Overarching observations on Issue 5..................................................................................... 878
Issue 5(b): Amcor contends that Glenvill should have paused sub-surface demolition when it became apparent that there was substantial asbestos contamination in the fill on the site............................................................................................................................................ 881
Amcor’s submissions...................................................................................................... 881
Glenvill’s response.......................................................................................................... 888
Issues 5(a) and 5(c): Amcor contends that Glenvill’s approach to remediation of the site was ad hoc and reactive and that Glenvill failed to formulate an appropriate remediation strategy............................................................................................................................................ 894
Amcor’s submissions...................................................................................................... 895
Glenvill’s response.......................................................................................................... 901
Issues 5(d) and 5(e): Amcor contends that Glenvill adopted a remediation strategy of removing all (or substantially all) fill at the site, principally for geotechnical reasons, and failed to properly investigate and/or adopt a capping strategy to remediate the asbestos contamination at the site................................................................................................. 911
Amcor’s submissions...................................................................................................... 913
Glenvill’s response to Issues 5(d) and 5(e)................................................................... 957
Overarching observations on capping strategy issues raised in Issues 5 and 7.............. 970
Issue 5(f): Amcor contends there were failures by Glenvill in its tendering processes. 984
Overarching observations on SC 11.2 issues raised in Issues 5 and 8............................. 1009
Issue 5(g): Amcor contends that there were failures by Glenvill in its management of soil and/or fill excavated at the Alphington site........................................................................... 1012
Glenvill’s response........................................................................................................ 1025
Observations on Issue 5(g)........................................................................................... 1026
Issue 5(h): Amcor contends that Glenvill failed to consider any changes to the Master Plan which were likely to reduce the cost of the Remediation Works at the Alphington site 1026
Observations on Issue 5(h)........................................................................................... 1037
Unidentified contamination claims – special condition 11.5.............................................. 1038
Progress claims 1 to 22A were paid in full by Amcor....................................................... 1038
Issue 10: Whether the UC notices to which claims 23 to 54 relate are valid?................... 1039
Issue 11: Whether Amcor objected to the UC Notices served and were those objections valid?.................................................................................................................................................... 1039
Glenvill contends the UC Notices it served on Amcor satisfied SC 11.5(a) of the APM Contract and were ‘valid’............................................................................................................. 1044
Lack of correlation between progress claims 23 to 54 and UC notices relied on by Glenvill is problematic..................................................................................................................... 1046
How the parties construed SC 11.5....................................................................................... 1048
Amcor contends that Glenvill’s UC Notices were invalid...................................... 1048
Glenvill disputes Amcor’s construction of SC 11.5(a)(i).......................................... 1050
Amcor’s construction of SC 11.5(a)(i)......................................................................... 1052
Proper construction of SC 11.5(a)......................................................................................... 1053
The Master Plan for the purposes of the APM Contract.......................................... 1055
Did the UC Notices given by Glenvill comply with SC 11.5?................................. 1065
Contractual requirements concerning ‘UC Notices’ and ‘objections’ under SC 11.5 – relevant concept of ‘validity’........................................................................................... 1102
Were the UC Notices valid?................................................................................................... 1113
UC Notice #1.................................................................................................................. 1114
Disposition: UC Notice #1 is not a ‘valid’ notice...................................................... 1129
Any objection to UC Notice #1?.................................................................................. 1132
UC Notice #1 Revised................................................................................................... 1133
Disposition: UC Notice #1 Revised is not a ‘valid’ notice....................................... 1171
Any objection to UC Notice #1 Revised?................................................................... 1176
The status of GHD as the Environmental Consultant under the APM Contract was formalised by Deed of Variation No 1............................................................ 1177
UC Notice #2.................................................................................................................. 1177
Disposition: UC Notice #2 was not a ‘valid’ notice.................................................. 1211
Any objection to UC Notice #2?.................................................................................. 1212
UC PCB Notice............................................................................................................... 1218
Disposition: UC PCB Notice is not a ‘valid’ notice................................................... 1223
Any objection to UC PCB Notice?............................................................................... 1224
UC Notice #3.................................................................................................................. 1226
Newly identified issues................................................................................................ 1234
Disposition: UC Notice #3 was not a ‘valid’ notice.................................................. 1249
Amcor’s objection to UC Notice #3............................................................................. 1251
UC Pulp Substitution Notice........................................................................................ 1251
Amcor’s objection to the UC Pulp Substitution Notice........................................... 1254
UC F6 Building Notice.................................................................................................. 1255
Amcor’s objection to the UC F6 Building Notice...................................................... 1259
UC Notice #4.................................................................................................................. 1259
Update concerning previously discovered ‘Unidentified Contamination’.......... 1267
Newly discovered unidentified contamination........................................................ 1271
Disposition: UC Notice #4 was not a ‘valid’ notice.................................................. 1295
Amcor’s objection to UC Notice #4............................................................................. 1296
UC Notice #4 Addendum............................................................................................ 1297
Disposition: UC Notice #4 Addendum was not a ‘valid’ notice............................ 1302
Amcor’s objection to UC Notice #4 Addendum....................................................... 1303
UC Notice December 2015............................................................................................ 1307
Disposition: UC Notice December 2015 was not a ‘valid’ notice........................... 1311
UC Notice #5 (c.17 March 2016).................................................................................. 1312
Disposition: UC Notice #5 is no longer pressed by Glenvill................................... 1314
Issue 10: Whether the UC notices to which claims 23 to 54 relate are valid?................... 1314
UC Notice #6.................................................................................................................. 1314
Low Density Residential use........................................................................................ 1339
Medium Density Residential use................................................................................ 1356
High Density Residential use...................................................................................... 1363
Mixed Use....................................................................................................................... 1368
Public Open Space – Non Riparian Zone ( Zone 5, Zone 13, Zone 19 and Zone 20) 1376
Public Open Space – Riparian Zone (Zone 1 and Zone 2)....................................... 1381
Amcor’s response to the June 2016 Draft CLR Report............................................. 1399
GHD’s Proposed further sampling and analysis plan - November 2015.............. 1400
Disposition: UC Notice #6 was not a ‘valid’ notice.................................................. 1407
Amcor’s objection to UC Notice #6............................................................................. 1411
UC Notice #7.................................................................................................................. 1413
GHD’s letter dated 24 May 2017.................................................................................. 1416
GHD’s Status of Identified Contamination Remediation Works & Costs Letter dated 10 October 2016.................................................................................................. 1419
December 2016 CLR Report......................................................................................... 1424
Location of Unidentified Contamination................................................................... 1435
May 2017 CLR Addendum Report............................................................................. 1473
Disposition: UC Notice #7 was not a ‘valid’ notice.................................................. 1481
Amcor’s objection to UC Notice #7............................................................................. 1492
UC Notice #8.................................................................................................................. 1493
GHD’s letter report dated 10 August 2017................................................................ 1495
Amcor’s response to UC Notice #8............................................................................. 1504
Glenvill’s response to Amcor’s objection................................................................... 1505
Disposition: UC Notice #8 was not a ‘valid’ notice.................................................. 1508
Amcor’s objection to UC Notice #8............................................................................. 1509
Answers to Issues 10 and 11....................................................................................................... 1510
Issues 12 to 19 (concerning ‘valid’ UC Notices)..................................................................... 1510
Issue 13: How are the SC 11.5(c) issues to be determined by the Court (in lieu of an expert) in respect of the relevant UC notices?..................................................................................... 1515
Issue 14: What findings is the Court required to make under SC 11.5(c) as a pre-condition to Amcor incurring any contractual liability under SC 11.3(a)?..................................................... 1515
Issue 15: Do the reports of the Court appointed s 65M expert provide the Court with a proper basis to make the necessary findings?......................................................................................... 1515
Orders made by Hargrave J on 1 December 2017.............................................................. 1519
Glenvill engaged Dr Beck as its nominated expert............................................................ 1527
Amcor engaged Mr Kluckow as its nominated expert...................................................... 1528
The s 65M expert: Mr Sinclair................................................................................................ 1528
The conduct of the s 65M process......................................................................................... 1529
Expert report of Dr Beck........................................................................................................ 1529
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1529
Conceptual Site Model.................................................................................................. 1531
‘Disputed UC Notices’.................................................................................................. 1534
Question 1....................................................................................................................... 1555
Dr Beck’s response to Question 1................................................................................ 1555
Dr Beck’s Response to Question 2............................................................................... 1587
Dr Beck’s Response to Question 3............................................................................... 1613
Dr Beck’s Response to Question 4............................................................................... 1628
Environmental audits for potentially contaminated sites....................................... 1632
Dr Beck’s Response to Question 5............................................................................... 1641
Dr Beck’s Response to Question 6............................................................................... 1672
Summary of Dr Beck’s opinions.................................................................................. 1687
Expert report of Mr Kluckow................................................................................................ 1690
Question 1....................................................................................................................... 1700
Mr Kluckow’s response to Question 1........................................................................ 1705
Question 2....................................................................................................................... 1707
Mr Kluckow’s response to Question 2........................................................................ 1707
Question 3....................................................................................................................... 1709
Mr Kluckow’s response to Question 3........................................................................ 1712
Question 4....................................................................................................................... 1714
Mr Kluckow’s response to Question 4........................................................................ 1718
Question 5....................................................................................................................... 1728
Mr Kluckow’s response to Question 5........................................................................ 1728
Question 6....................................................................................................................... 1729
Mr Kluckow’s response to Question 6........................................................................ 1733
Summary of Mr Kluckow’s opinions................................................................................... 1748
Section 65M reports prepared by Mr Sinclair........................................................................ 1751
Section 65M process.................................................................................................................... 1754
The gist of the evidence given by Mr Sinclair in his reports............................................ 1759
Viva voce evidence given by Mr Sinclair at the trial......................................................... 1777
Evidence given by Dr Beck at trial concerning volume estimates......................... 1794
The outcome of the s 65M process............................................................................................ 1808
Issues as to quantum................................................................................................................... 1819
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1819
Glenvill’s proposed use of progress claim ‘road maps’........................................... 1821
Glenvill’s progress claim ‘Road Map’ aide-mémoire........................................................... 1824
Amcor’s Thematic Response to Glenvill’s PC Road Maps.................................................. 1826
Montlaur was never provided with Deed of Variation No 1........................................... 1827
Quantum and proof of Glenvill’s claim as to the quantum of costs ‘properly and reasonably incurred’ for the purposes of SC 11.3(a)(ii) of the APM Contract................................ 1833
Closing addresses on quantum................................................................................................. 1834
Amcor’s submissions on quantum....................................................................................... 1834
Glenvill’s failure to adduce records concerning ‘Remediation Works’ capable of enlivening Amcor’s obligation to pay................................................................................ 1834
The QS evidence of the expert quantity surveyors does not assist to prove Amcor is liable for any specific quantum of claim................................................................... 1838
Amcor’s Thematic Response to Glenvill’s PC Road Maps.................................................. 1850
Overview of works performed by Delta.................................................................... 1850
Part CDelta works which Glenvill has claimed as ‘Remediation Works’ but which were wholly or partly ‘Demolition Works’............................................................. 1850
Part DBulk Excavation and Subsequent Abatement or Disposal of Contaminated Fill by Delta..................................................................................................................... 1889
Part EInability to Reconcile Underlying and Summary Records Supporting Delta’s Progress Claims.................................................................................................................. 1891
Part F............................................................................. CSC Progress Claims - Overview..... 1893
Part GCSC Progress Claims - Detail........................................................................... 1894
Amcor’s detailed response to Glenvill’s PC Road Map.................................................... 1901
Amcor’s closing address on quantum................................................................................. 1903
Deficiencies in the Montlaur certifications are fatal to Glenvill’s claim................ 1903
Glenvill’s reliance on Mr Kritzler’s expert report..................................................... 1908
Glenvill relies on the records of the respective Contractors which Amcor alleges are deficient.............................................................................................................................. 1909
Glenvill has failed to articulate what it contends the phrases or expressions used in the APM Contract — ‘properly and reasonably incurred’ and ‘properly payable’ — mean.............................................................................................................................. 1912
Glenvill’s approach to Remediation Works............................................................... 1915
Inclusion in Delta’s progress claims of Extra Over costs......................................... 1917
Montlaur’s reconciliation of Delta’s use of plant...................................................... 1933
Mr Scoble’s modus operandi provides no proper basis for independent verification 1934
Asbestos cement pipes.................................................................................................. 1934
Glenvill’s complaint that Amcor failed to put certain matters to its contractor witnesses.............................................................................................................................. 1937
Chandler Highway Hoarding Claim.......................................................................... 1939
D.. Failure of contractual mechanism....................................................................................... 1960
Issue 20: Alleged failure of the contractual mechanism...................................................... 1960
Glenvill’s pleading of the alleged failure............................................................................ 1960
Glenvill’s case in opening...................................................................................................... 1963
Amcor’s response.................................................................................................................... 1965
What is the alleged failure of the contractual mechanism?.............................................. 1970
Amcor’s submissions.............................................................................................................. 1975
Glenvill’s oral closing submissions...................................................................................... 1985
Amcor’s oral reply to Glenvill’s oral closing submissions................................................ 1991
Consideration and conclusion on Issue 20.......................................................................... 1995
The reference to events in November 2015................................................................ 1995
The 2017 variation of the APM Contract by correspondence................................. 1998
The proper construction of SC 11.5(c) and SC 11.3 (insofar as it related to remediation in respect of Unidentified Contamination).................................................................................. 2001
The contractual mechanism did not fail..................................................................... 2007
Issue 21: Alleged breach of SC 17.7 and implied terms (co-operation and good faith and fair dealing).................................................................................................................................... 2009
Glenvill’s submissions............................................................................................................ 2010
Knowledge of risk withheld from Glenvill................................................................ 2012
Amcor’s instruction or consent to proceed with works........................................... 2012
Amcor’s pursuit of an extraneous purpose on the advice of Golder..................... 2014
Amcor’s submissions.............................................................................................................. 2017
Knowledge of risk withheld from Glenvill................................................................ 2018
Amcor’s instruction or consent to proceed with works........................................... 2019
Amcor’s pursuit of an extraneous purpose on the advice of Golder..................... 2019
Glenvill’s closing address...................................................................................................... 2020
Amcor’s oral submissions in reply....................................................................................... 2022
Consideration and conclusion on Issue 21.......................................................................... 2024
Glenvill’s ‘knowledge of risk withheld’ allegation.................................................. 2028
Issue 22: What is the quantum of costs ‘properly and reasonably incurred’ by Glenvill in procuring/undertaking Demolition Works and Remediation Works, as assessed by the Court?.................................................................................................................................................... 2035
Glenvill’s submissions............................................................................................................ 2036
Quantum of costs arising from UC Notices not the subject of objection by Amcor (UC Notice #1, UC Notice #1 Revised and UC Notice #4)......................... 2036
Quantum of costs of remediating Identified Contamination.................................. 2041
Amcor’s submissions.............................................................................................................. 2043
Consideration and conclusion on Issue 22.......................................................................... 2044
E... Quantum meruit (Issue 23)................................................................................................... 2045
Glenvill’s submissions............................................................................................................ 2046
Amcor’s submissions.............................................................................................................. 2047
No basis in the pleadings for a claim in quantum meruit....................................... 2047
No basis in fact for a claim in quantum meruit......................................................... 2050
No basis in law for a claim in quantum meruit........................................................ 2053
Consideration and conclusion on Issue 23.......................................................................... 2057
F... Master Plan.............................................................................................................................. 2058
Issue 24: [no longer pressed]...................................................................................................... 2058
Issue 25: Adjustments to be made to the Master Plan - whether any adjustments are proposed to be made by Glenvill (SC 11.5(a)(i)) – or should be made (SC 11.5(c)(i)) - to mitigate the effect of the Unidentified Contamination?....................................................................................... 2061
Glenvill’s closing submissions..................................................................................... 2063
Amcor’s closing submissions....................................................................................... 2063
Disposition of Issue 25.................................................................................................. 2064
G.. Riparian Zone......................................................................................................................... 2065
Issue 26: Whether Glenvill can recover costs of remediating Unidentified Contamination in the Riparian Zone?....................................................................................................................... 2065
What is the Riparian Zone?................................................................................................... 2065
The basis on which Amcor seeks declaratory relief................................................. 2069
Amcor’s contentions............................................................................................................... 2078
The Master Plan did not include the Riparian Zone................................................ 2079
The Master Plan in Annexure B did not show a ‘use’ for the Riparian Zone....... 2082
Glenvill’s contentions............................................................................................................. 2084
Glenvill contends the Master Plan designated the Riparian Zone as land specified to be usable and accessible as public open space................................................... 2084
Glenvill contends the Riparian Zone was included within the uses specified in the Master Plan...................................................................................................................... 2087
Glenvill’s foreshadowed entitlement to indemnification for costs of remediating Unidentified Contamination in the Riparian Zone...................................... 2092
Consideration of rival arguments and disposition............................................................... 2094
Relevant pre-contractual documents and communications............................................. 2096
The Ramsay suite of documents........................................................................................... 2099
The Ramsay DSI report................................................................................................. 2100
Ramsay (costing) letter report dated 7 February 2011............................................. 2108
Request for Ramsay to provide further information (February 2013)................... 2114
Ramsay (costing) letter report dated 14 March 2013................................................ 2114
Ramsay letter report dated 28 June 2013 – ‘Ramsay Costing’................................. 2119
Email correspondence from Glenvill to Amcor dated 25 June 2013...................... 2123
Relevant post-contractual events.............................................................................................. 2126
GHD Site Remediation Strategy (December 2013)............................................................. 2127
GHD Remediation Cost Estimate (May 2014).................................................................... 2133
GHD Site Remediation Strategy (May 2014)....................................................................... 2141
GHD Addendum to Site Remediation Strategy (October 2014)...................................... 2144
GHD Remediation Action Plan (October 2014).................................................................. 2146
GHD Health Risk Assessment (October 2014).................................................................... 2148
Deed of Variation No 1 dated 18 February 2015................................................................ 2149
Yarra Planning Scheme matters............................................................................................ 2152
Is Amcor liable to pay any sum in respect of remediation of Unidentified Contamination in the Riparian Zone?............................................................................................................... 2157
Progress Claim No 53.................................................................................................... 2158
Progress Claim No 54.................................................................................................... 2159
Appendix A Table 1 Update to Areas to be further assessed during Remediation (including subsurface infrastructure)................................................................................ 2164
The Draft Riparian Zone RAP (November 2018)...................................................... 2166
Content of the Draft Riparian Zone RAP – the remediation actions proposed.... 2169
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 2178
H.. Boiler House [1954 Boiler House and F6 Building]......................................................... 2180
Issue 27: Whether Glenvill or Amcor is liable to pay for demolition and/or remediation works undertaken in relation to the 1954 Boiler House and the F6 Building?...................... 2180
Location of the 1954 Boiler House and F6 Buildings......................................................... 2181
The APM Contract – ‘Plant and Equipment’...................................................................... 2185
The Delta Quote...................................................................................................................... 2189
Deed of Variation No 1........................................................................................................... 2191
The Delta Contract.................................................................................................................. 2193
Proposed demolition of the 1954 Boiler House.................................................................. 2197
Evidence given at trial about the 1954 Boiler House................................................ 2200
Demolition of the F6 Buildings............................................................................................. 2203
The Delta Quote............................................................................................................. 2203
The Delta Contract......................................................................................................... 2204
Amcor’s contentions – 1954 Boiler House........................................................................... 2227
Glenvill’s contentions – 1954 Boiler House......................................................................... 2228
Amcor’s contentions – F6 Buildings..................................................................................... 2231
Glenvill’s contentions – F6 Buildings................................................................................... 2232
Consideration and disposition.............................................................................................. 2232
Issue 27(a)....................................................................................................................... 2232
Issue 27(b)....................................................................................................................... 2244
Issue 27(c)........................................................................................................................ 2245
Declaratory relief sought in Amcor’s counterclaim........................................................... 2248
The Administration – (East/West) Building....................................................................... 2249
Delta Contract................................................................................................................ 2249
December 2014 Site Instruction................................................................................... 2253
Validation Report for Area 4........................................................................................ 2255
Required remediation works: Administration – (East/West) Building?........................ 2258
Amcor’s contentions...................................................................................................... 2261
Observations on relief sought............................................................................................... 2265
[6226]Amcor’s second further amended particulars of loss and damage of its counterclaim (11 August 2021).
The amounts claimed ‘pursuant to statute’ are in the alternative to the amounts claimed pursuant to SC 17.16 of the APM Contract (as set out in paragraphs [1.5] and [2.5] of Amcor’s Second Further Amended Particulars), and are described as follows in the text of Amcor’s Second Further Amended Particulars:[6227]
[6227]Amcor’s second further amended particulars of loss and damage of its counterclaim (11 August 2021), at [1.5A]-[1.6] and [2.5A].
. . .
Amcor’s calculations of the interest accruing pursuant to statute from the due date until judgment (using the hypothetical delivery date of 1 August 2022) were set out in Part 3 of Annexure C, as follows:[6228]
[6228]Amcor’s second further amended particulars of loss and damage of its counterclaim (11 August 2021), Annexure C, Part 3 – Alternative calculation of accrued interest.
In the Amcor Reply Submissions & Worked Example, Amcor noted that it has given particulars of its alternative claim for (simple) interest under s 58 and confirmed that it seeks an award of interest pursuant to s 58 ‘up to entry of judgment’.[6229]
[6229]Amcor Reply Submissions & Worked Example (11 August 2021), at [10] citing Seoud v Fortythird Garland Pty Ltd (2019) 57 VR 262 at [95] per McMillan J.
In circumstances where Glenvill has now agreed with Amcor upon the quantum of the outstanding amounts that are unpaid by Glenvill under SC 10.8(b) (‘the First Outstanding Interest Amount’ – $846,448.63) and SC 10.8(d) (‘the Second Outstanding Interest Amount’ – $2,429,201.10), and has become ‘certain’ within the meaning of s 58, and each of those amounts will be recovered by Amcor as part of the relief to be awarded in the counterclaim proceeding, Amcor now seeks interest on each of those amounts under s 58. Amcor submits that the requirements of s 58(1) are satisfied, such that it is prima facie entitled to an award of interest on each of those amounts unless good cause to the contrary can be demonstrated, and the onus is on Glenvill, as the defendant to the counterclaim, to show good cause.
As Tate and Kyrou JJA explained in Carbone, the beneficial purpose underlying the statutory power to award interest is first to ‘compensate a party who has been obliged to take proceedings to recover a money sum and who in the meantime has been kept out of moneys which could otherwise have been used or upon which interest could have been earned’ and ‘s 58 should not be given a narrow meaning and that its beneficial purpose should be given a broad application.’ The notion underlying the beneficial purpose, however, that the person ‘has been kept out of moneys which could otherwise have been used’ also connotes that the money sought to be recovered was due and payable — and should have been paid —before the initiation of the proceeding.[6230]
[6230]Amaca Pty Ltd v CSR Ltd [No 2] [2015] VSC 605 at [10] Macaulay J, citing City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Giannarelli [1977] VR 463, 466; Saunders v Nash [1991] 2 VR 63, 68 (Vincent J); Chong v CC Containers Pty Ltd (2015) 49 VR 402, 476 [256].
In the present case, SC 10.8 of the APM Contract specified a date for payment of each of the sums payable on settlement of the various Superlots together with interest for a specified period in circumstances where the plan (or plans) of subdivision were not registered within the timeframe:
(a)SC 10.8(b) provided that if the plan of subdivision or consolidation (creating Superlots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) was not registered on or before 15 June 2016, then settlement of the Green Land must occur with Glenvill as sole Purchaser paying the sum of $31million, and Glenvill must pay interest to the Vendor on the amount of $31million for the period from 15 December 2015 until 15 June 2016 as prescribed under SC 10.8(b)(iv) and such interest is payable on 15 June 2016; and
(b)SC 10.8(d) provided that if a plan (or plans) of subdivision or consolidation (creating Superlots 4, 5 and 6) was not registered on or before 15 December 2016, then the settlement of Superlots 4, 5 and that part of Superlot 6 which does not comprise the Green Land must occur with Glenvill as sole Purchaser paying the sum of $51million, and Glenvill must pay interest to the Vendor on the amount of $27million for the period from 15 December 2016 until 15 December 2017 as prescribed under SC 10.8(d)(iii) and such interest is payable on 15 December 2017.
However, on 17 May 2016, before any interest had fallen due for payment under the APM Contract, the parties agreed to defer the date for payment of penalty interest ‘until 14 days after determination by the expert’ but with a reservation of rights. As matters transpired, the settlements of the Superlots proceeded, and with the deferral of the payment of penalty interest, Amcor has effectively been kept out of its moneys because there has not been any expert determination and the Court has now been appointed in place of the expert, with the result that it has been necessary for Amcor to seek the recovery of those moneys payable under SC 10.8, together with interest, through its counterclaim.
The proceeding was commenced by Glenvill on 15 June 2017, and Amcor initiated its counterclaim on 14 August 2017. However, as will be noted, given the parties’ agreement on 17 May 2016 to defer the date for payment of penalty interest ‘until 14 days after determination by the expert’, neither of the money sums payable under SC 10.8(b)(iv) or SC 10.8(d)(iii) was actually a debt that was due and payable to Amcor at the time of commencement of Glenvill’s proceeding or Amcor’s counterclaim.
Accordingly, were it necessary to consider Amcor’s alternative claim for interest pursuant to statute, under s 58 of the Supreme Court Act, I am not satisfied that Amcor’s claim for interest on either the First or Second Outstanding Amounts payable under SC 10.8, meets the threshold requirement of s 58. That is because the parties expressly agreed to defer payment of penalty interest ‘until 14 days after determination by the expert’, with the result that Amcor has not been kept out of its money in the relevant sense.
Form of final orders
In due course, I will hear from the parties as to the appropriate form of final orders.
---
· Fairfield Mill, Victoria – Contamination Plan, prepared by Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [now known as ‘GHD’] for Amcor Fibre Packaging (Australia) Pty Ltd, May 2003;
· Environmental Audit of Fairfield Mill, Alphington, Victoria, prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff Australia Pty Limited for Amcor Australasia Pty Ltd, February 2008;
· Draft Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for Latrobe Avenue, Alphington, Victoria, prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff Australia Pty Limited for Amcor Australasia Pty Ltd, December 2008;
· Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment — Fairfield Mill, Alphington, Victoria, prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff Australia Pty Limited for Amcor Australasia Pty Ltd, January 2009; and
· Asbestos Audit Review, Amcor Fibre Packaging, Fairfield Mill, prepared by Bureau Veritas for Amcor Fibre Packaging, December 2007.
4.6 Asbestos soil contamination and health risk
Asbestos only poses a risk to human health when asbestos fibres are made airborne and inhaled. If asbestos is bound in a matrix such as cement or resin, it is not readily made airborne except through substantial physical damage.
This guidance emphasises that the assessment and management of asbestos contamination should take into account the condition of the asbestos materials and the potential for damage and resulting release of asbestos fibres.
Bonded ACM in sound condition represents a low human health risk. However, both FA and AF materials have the potential to generate, or be associated with, free asbestos fibres. As a result, FA and AF must be carefully managed to prevent the release of asbestos fibres into the air.
It is an inappropriate response to declare a site a human health risk on the basis of the presence of bonded ACM alone. However, if the bonded material is damaged or crumbling (that is, it has become friable), it may represent a significant human health risk if disturbed and fibres are made airborne.
The site-specific assessment of sites contaminated with asbestos in soil should be aimed at describing the nature and quantity of asbestos present in sufficient detail to enable a risk management plan to be developed for the current or proposed land use. The management plan should address potential scenarios for the relevant land use(s) whereby asbestos fibres may become airborne and pose a human health risk.
[MR MONICHINO:] So the aesthetic issues remained?---Yes, they did. We did further investigation and discussions with the auditor and negotiated to a position where the auditor was happy with the site removing all the fill.
To your knowledge, there was no substantial excavation of soils in audit area 6A?---Not substantial excavation of soil in area 6A, no, to my knowledge.
See Transcript 22.02.2021, at T1264 (Whincup XXN).
When reading the orders, particularly Schedule 1 in the context [sic] Clause 11.5 c) of the contract, it is apparent that Question 6 needs to be answered in the context of the 8 Unidentified Contamination Notices that are in dispute and not what the actual remediation works should or could costs.
Therefore, my report was based on what was known at the time each notice was issued and not what was known after all works were completed. My opinions in regard to Question 6 were therefore based on assessment of the scope of works and costs estimate with information apparent at the time of the notice and not using a benefit of hindsight approach. I believe that my approach was in line with the intent of the orders, particularly when reading Question 6 in the context of the first sentence of Schedule 1.
1.1Key activities Completed for the Reporting Period
The following works were undertaken by the project team over the past month:
. . .
Contract Sum Negotiation
·Demolition Contract has been executed by Delta and countersigned.
·Demolition Contract Sum is $6,378,946 with a pricing option of $162,000 to demolish the 1954 Boiler House and East-West run of the Coal Conveyor. This option has not yet been instructed.
. . .
3.0Contract Administration:
3.1Contract
Contract executed and returned to Delta.
Bank Guarantees received, yet provided with incorrect address. Delta to amend and resubmit.
2
4
40