Barangaroo Delivery Authority v Lend Lease (Millers Point) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2014] NSWCA 279
•21 August 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Barangaroo Delivery Authority v Lend Lease (Millers Point) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 279
[2014] NSWCA 279
21 August 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered a dispute between the Barangaroo Delivery Authority and Lend Lease (Millers Point) Pty Ltd concerning the interpretation of the term "Current Market Value" within a contract. The core of the disagreement lay in how this value should be assessed, particularly in light of a worked example provided by the parties.
The central legal issue before the court was the proper construction of the contractual definition of "Current Market Value." This involved determining the weight to be given to the labels chosen by the parties, the significance of a worked example attached "for information purposes only," and the extent to which a commercial operation should be favoured over commercial absurdity. The court also considered the implications of arguments based on the principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*.
In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the commercial operation of a contract should be given effect, and that interpretations leading to commercial absurdity should be avoided. The court found that the worked example, despite being labelled "for information purposes only," was intended to illustrate the practical application of the defined term and therefore held significant interpretive weight. The court rejected arguments that sought to exclude the practical implications of the worked example, finding that such an approach would lead to an uncommercial outcome.
The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The central legal issue before the court was the proper construction of the contractual definition of "Current Market Value." This involved determining the weight to be given to the labels chosen by the parties, the significance of a worked example attached "for information purposes only," and the extent to which a commercial operation should be favoured over commercial absurdity. The court also considered the implications of arguments based on the principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*.
In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the commercial operation of a contract should be given effect, and that interpretations leading to commercial absurdity should be avoided. The court found that the worked example, despite being labelled "for information purposes only," was intended to illustrate the practical application of the defined term and therefore held significant interpretive weight. The court rejected arguments that sought to exclude the practical implications of the worked example, finding that such an approach would lead to an uncommercial outcome.
The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Contract Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Contract Formation
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Woodhouse, in the matter of Panoramic Resources Limited [2024] FCA 449
Cases Citing This Decision
11
Singh v Lynch
[2020] NSWCA 152
Segelov v Ernst & Young Services Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWCA 156
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
0
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
[2009] UKHL 38
Hardy Wine Company Ltd v Janevruss Pty Ltd
[2006] VSCA 28
Owners of “Shin Kobe Maru” v Empire Shipping Co Inc
[1994] HCA 54
Cited Sections