New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v CPC Energy Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 228 HEARING DATE(S): 29 July 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:
25 September 2008JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Allsop P at 1; Campbell JA at 63 DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT – Cost-plus contract – Authorised subcontractor – Where subcontractor a related company – Cost of services by subcontractor - DAMAGES – Claim in tort of deceit and misleading conduct – Loss pursuant to contract only – Relevance of contractual loss to breach of tort or statute - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Referees’ report – Review and adoption of report – Exercise of discretion – Appeals – Principles to be applied LEGISLATION CITED: Australian Constitution
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Buckley v Bennell Design Constructions Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 1
Chloride Batteries Australia Ltd v Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd (1988) 17 NSWLR 60
Chocolate Factory Apartments Pty Ltd v Westpoint Finance Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 784
Coulton v Holcombe (1980) 162 CLR 1
CPC Energy Pty Ltd v Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1397
Foxman Holdings Pty Ltd v NMBE Pty Ltd (1994) 38 NSWLR 615
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Nicholls v Stamer [1980] VR 479
Super Pty Ltd v SJP Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 549
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418
White Constructions (NT) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1990) 7 BCL 193PARTIES: Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd (First Appellant)
John Francis Fielding (Second Appellant)
CPC Energy Pty Ltd (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40871/2007 COUNSEL: (Appellant) B W Walker SC with R D Marshall
(Respondent) M J Slattery QC with R A ParsonsSOLICITORS: (Appellant) Dibbs Abbott Stillman
(Respondent) Summit Law
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 55062/2005 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Einstein J LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 25 September 2008 LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2007] NSWSC 1397
CA 40871/2007
Thursday 25 September 2008SPIGELMAN CJ
ALLSOP P
CAMPBELL JA
Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor v CPC Energy Pty Ltd
1 SPIGELMAN CJ and ALLSOP P: The respondent (“CPC”) commenced proceedings in the Technology and Construction List of the Equity Division of the Supreme Court seeking relief with respect to a cost-plus building contract pursuant to which the appellants (“Bellevarde”) as builder undertook to demolish buildings and construct apartments for CPC.
2 The proceedings were referred out to the Honourable Moreton Rolfe QC and Ms Janet Grey as referees. By a report dated 9 July 2007 the referees recommended that certain aspects of CPC’s case should be upheld and consequential orders made.
3 A number of matters were disputed before Einstein J who concluded that the referees’ report should be adopted and made consequential orders. (CPC Energy Pty Ltd v Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1397.) Bellevarde seeks…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v CPC Energy Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] NSWCA 228
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in adopting the referee's report, particularly in relation to the assessment of costs for services provided by a subcontractor that was a related company of CPC Energy. Further, the Court had to consider the relevance of contractual loss to claims made in tort and under statute, and whether Bellevarde's loss was confined to what it might recover under the contract.
The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's adoption of the referee's report, finding no error in the exercise of discretion. It was held that the referee had properly considered the evidence regarding the costs incurred by the related subcontractor. The Court also clarified that while a claim in tort or under statute might arise from misleading conduct, the measure of loss in such claims is not necessarily limited to contractual entitlements. However, in this instance, the evidence presented by Bellevarde did not establish a loss beyond what was contemplated by the contract, and therefore, the claims in tort and statute were not made out on the facts.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.