Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2021] QSC 224
•3 September 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (St) Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 224
[2021] QSC 224
3 September 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, a building contractor, and the defendant, the owner of a hotel, were involved in a dispute regarding a building contract. The plaintiff claimed that it was entitled to additional payments for variations, preliminaries, and liquidated damages, and that the defendant was not entitled to recover the costs of rectifying defective works. The defendant denied these claims and sought payment for liquidated damages and the costs of rectifying defects.
The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether extrinsic evidence could be used to interpret the contract, whether the notices given by the defendant in August and September 2016 constituted a direction to undertake a variation or a notice to rectify defective work, whether the plaintiff was entitled to an assessment of the costs of the variation, whether the plaintiff was entitled to an additional 7.5 per cent for preliminaries, whether the defendant was entitled to the amount for liquidated damages, and whether the air conditioning system installed by the plaintiff was defective.
The court held that extrinsic evidence was admissible to interpret the contract, but that the notices given by the defendant in August and September 2016 did not constitute a direction to undertake a variation or a notice to rectify defective work. The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an assessment of the costs of the variation, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to an additional 7.5 per cent for preliminaries. The court held that the defendant was entitled to the amount for liquidated damages, but that the air conditioning system installed by the plaintiff was not defective.
The court ordered that the parties confer to agree on a timetable for directions on the appropriate orders to be made in light of these reasons. The parties were to provide further written submissions in an agreed form, not more than 25 pages, and any additional findings of fact required at this stage should be identified in the written submissions. The written submissions should also address interest and costs.
The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether extrinsic evidence could be used to interpret the contract, whether the notices given by the defendant in August and September 2016 constituted a direction to undertake a variation or a notice to rectify defective work, whether the plaintiff was entitled to an assessment of the costs of the variation, whether the plaintiff was entitled to an additional 7.5 per cent for preliminaries, whether the defendant was entitled to the amount for liquidated damages, and whether the air conditioning system installed by the plaintiff was defective.
The court held that extrinsic evidence was admissible to interpret the contract, but that the notices given by the defendant in August and September 2016 did not constitute a direction to undertake a variation or a notice to rectify defective work. The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an assessment of the costs of the variation, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to an additional 7.5 per cent for preliminaries. The court held that the defendant was entitled to the amount for liquidated damages, but that the air conditioning system installed by the plaintiff was not defective.
The court ordered that the parties confer to agree on a timetable for directions on the appropriate orders to be made in light of these reasons. The parties were to provide further written submissions in an agreed form, not more than 25 pages, and any additional findings of fact required at this stage should be identified in the written submissions. The written submissions should also address interest and costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Contract Formation
-
Interpretation of Contract
-
Variations
-
Liquidated Damages
-
Defective Works
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (St) Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 224
Most Recent Citation
Built Qld Pty Limited v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (ST) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2023] QCA 140
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Built Qld Pty Ltd v Pro-Invest Australian Hospitality Opportunity (St) Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2021] QSC 301
MCC Pty Ltd v Greer
[2022] QCAT 410
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd
[2015] HCA 37
Byrnes v Kendle
[2011] HCA 26