Legal Research
Cases
Central Projects Pty Ltd v Davidson

Central Projects Pty Ltd v Davidson

Case [2018] NSWSC 523 30 April 2018

Contract Formation

Unjust Enrichment

Compensatory Damages

Building and Construction Law

Commercial Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Central Projects Pty Ltd v Davidson [2018] NSWSC 523
Hearing dates: 17 April 2018
Decision date: 30 April 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity - Technology and Construction List
Before: Ball J
Decision:
(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,245,166.67.
(2)   The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
(3)   Liberty to apply on 14 days’ notice to vary order (2). Such liberty may be exercised by contacting the Associate of Ball J to relist the matter at a time convenient to the parties.

Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Progress payments – Effect of omission of information from a supporting statement under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) s 13(9) – Effect of failure to serve a supporting statement under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) s 13(7)
Legislation Cited: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Act 2013 (NSW)
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Regulation 2008 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Oaths Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Duffy Kennedy Pty Ltd v Lainson Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 371
Kitchen Xchange v Formacon Building Services [2014] NSWSC 1602
Kyle Bay Removals Pty Ltd v Dynabuild Project Services Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 334
The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore v T F Woollam and Son [2012] NSWSC 1559
Texts Cited: NSW, Independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, Final Report, (November 2012)
New South Wales Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 12 November 2013
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Central Projects Pty Ltd ABN 99 078 489 291 (Plaintiff)
Stephen D Davidson ABN 17 979 273 632 (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
I Roberts SC with M Sheldon (Plaintiff)
S Robertson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Maddocks (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/63916
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

By a summons filed on 26 February 2018, the plaintiff, Central Projects Pty Ltd, seeks judgment against the defendant, Mr Stephen Davidson, in the sum of $1,224,354.06 plus interest and costs in respect of a payment claim served on 5 January 2018 pursuant to s 13(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the BCISOP Act).
Mr Davidson did not serve a payment schedule in response to the claim within the 10 business days stipulated in s 14(4) of the BCISOP Act. Central Projects claims that, as a consequence, it is entitled to judgment under s 15 of the BCISOP Act for the amount that it claims.
Mr Davidson resists that claim on the basis that the payment claim served by Central Projects was not accompanied by a supporting statement that met the requirements of s 13(7), (8) and (9) and, therefore, was not validly and effectively served on him in accordance with the BCISOP Act. It is that issue on which this case turns.

Relevant legislation

Before setting out the relevant facts in…

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.

Continue reading Central Projects Pty Ltd v Davidson

Details

AGLC: Central Projects Pty Ltd v Davidson [2018] NSWSC 523
Case: [2018] NSWSC 523
Decision Date: 30 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Central Projects Pty Ltd v Davidson, the respondent, Davidson, sought a payment determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) against the applicant, Central Projects Pty Ltd. The respondent claimed an amount of $60,715.63 as a progress payment for works performed under a contract for the construction of a commercial building. The applicant disputed the validity of the payment claim, arguing that the respondent had failed to provide a supporting statement as required by section 13(7) of the Act. Additionally, the applicant contended that the supporting statement provided was incomplete, omitting critical information necessary to substantiate the claim as required by section 13(9) of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's failure to serve a supporting statement as required by section 13(7) of the Act rendered the payment claim invalid. A secondary issue was whether the incomplete supporting statement provided by the respondent was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 13(9) of the Act. The court had to consider the statutory obligations under the Act and the implications of non-compliance on the enforceability of the payment claim. The court also needed to assess the completeness and adequacy of the supporting statement provided by the respondent to determine whether it met the legislative requirements for a valid progress payment claim.

The court held that the respondent's failure to serve a supporting statement as required by section 13(7) of the Act invalidated the payment claim. Section 13(7) explicitly mandates the provision of a supporting statement to substantiate a payment claim, and non-compliance with this requirement results in the claim being invalid. The court further found that even if the respondent had provided a supporting statement, it was incomplete and did not contain all the information required by section 13(9). The supporting statement lacked critical details such as the contractual basis for the claim, the calculation of the amount claimed, and the basis for any variation or change in the claim. Consequently, the court ruled that the respondent's payment claim was invalid due to the failure to serve a supporting statement and the incompleteness of the provided statement. The court dismissed the respondent's application for a payment determination.

In conclusion, the court's decision in Central Projects Pty Ltd v Davidson underscores the importance of strict compliance with the statutory requirements for progress payment claims under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW). Both the failure to serve a supporting statement and the provision of an incomplete statement were grounds for invalidating the respondent's claim. The court's ruling highlights the need for claimants to adhere to the legislative obligations to ensure the enforceability of their claims.

Orders