Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd v Strata Plan 125 - [2025] NSWSC 501

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd v Strata Plan 125 [2025] NSWSC 501
Hearing dates: 22 May 2025
Date of orders: 17 June 2025
Decision date: 17 June 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Peden J
Decision:
At [90]

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS — Construction — Interpretation — Whether plaintiff entitled to payment from defendant under special condition for what plaintiff contends is additional work — Scope within contract sum

Legislation Cited:
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 63

Cases Cited:
AFC Holdings Pty Ltd v Shiprock Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 985
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd (2017) 261 CLR 544
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640
Laundy Hotels (Quarry) Pty Ltd v Dyco Hotels Pty Ltd (2023) 276 CLR 500
Lohar Corp Pty Ltd v Dibu Pty Ltd (1975) 1 BPR 9177
Madsen v Darmali (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 582
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104
Strike Australia Pty Ltd v Data Base Corporate Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 205
XL Insurance Co SE v BNY Trust Company of Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 215

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd (plaintiff)
Strata Plan 125 (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Ashurst SC with L Corbett (plaintiff)
D Miller SC with B Le Plastrier (defendant)
Solicitors:
BCP Lawyers & Consultants (plaintiff)
Crisp Law (defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/00426245
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In December 2021, Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd agreed to provide work pursuant to a “design and build contract” for the Owners of Strata Plan 125, which is located at Blues Point Tower in McMahons Point, New South Wales.
The Owners sought primarily the replacement of all the building’s external windows and doors, which had reached the end of their working life. The heritage status of the building meant that the façade (significantly comprising masonry walls and sills below the windows) had to be replaced with “like” materials.
On 8 March 2021, the Owners’ agent invited Buildcorp to tender for the “Heritage Façade Maintenance works”. The Owners provided Buildcorp with various reference documents, including the Council’s approval for the works and various reports by consultants dated between 2018 and 2021, detailing the Owners’ lengthy investigation into the defects in the façade and their rectification.
Buildcorp won the tender. It has since completed all the remediation work required by the Owners and has been paid the contract sum. In completing the work, Buildcorp carried out some strengthening work to windowsills with brackets and by way of steel beams. It claimed those works were not included in the contract sum and instead fell within Special Condition in item 2 of Annexure Part G of the contract (“Clarifications and Exclusions”), and entitled it to be paid for the “variation” works. That clause provides (emphasis added):

The parties agree that [the Owners’] project requirements is subject to the following clariﬁcations and…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd v Strata Plan 125 and more:

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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 501
Decision Date: 17 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd v Strata Plan 125 involved a dispute between a contractor and a strata scheme over the interpretation of a construction contract. The contractor, Buildcorp, claimed that it was entitled to additional payment for work that went beyond the initial contract scope, which the strata scheme, Strata Plan 125, disputed. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had to determine whether the contractor was entitled to the additional payment as claimed.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the interpretation of the construction contract, specifically whether certain additional work performed by Buildcorp fell within the scope of the contract sum or if it constituted additional work for which extra payment should be made. The court had to consider the terms of the contract, including special conditions, and whether the additional work was reasonably within the scope of what was expected under the contract.

The court found that the additional work performed by Buildcorp was within the scope of the original contract. It determined that the special conditions of the contract did not entitle Buildcorp to additional payment, as the work in question was not beyond what was reasonably expected under the terms of the contract. The court relied on the principle that additional work should be clearly identified and outside the scope of the original contract for additional payment to be warranted. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Strata Plan 125 and against Buildcorp's claim for additional payment.

The court ordered that Buildcorp was not entitled to the additional payment claimed and that Strata Plan 125 was only liable for the contract sum as originally agreed. The decision highlights the importance of clear contract terms and the need for any additional work to be explicitly identified and agreed upon to justify additional payment.

Orders