Concrete Menders Pty Ltd v Ghiasvand & Ghiasvand
[2024] ACTMC 23
•2 April 2024
MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
| Case Title: | Concrete Menders Pty Ltd v Ghiasvand & Ghiasvand; |
| Ghiasvand & Ghiasvand v Flexible Constructions Pty Ltd | |
| Citation: | [2024] ACTMC 23 |
| Hearing Date: | 2 April 2024, 1-5 July 2024 |
| Decision Date: | 10 October 2024 |
| Before: | Special Magistrate Hassall |
| Decision: | See [336] |
| Catchwords: | CIVIL - CONTRACTS – alleged oral contract to perform |
| concreting work as part of residential construction – existence of | |
| contract disputed – defendants entered into written contract with | |
| third party for construction of entire residence – third party | |
| contends actual agreement different from written contract – | |
| principles for determining existence and terms of oral and informal | |
| contracts – principles to be applied where parties contends actual | |
| agreement different from written contract – objective theory of | |
| contract – outcome dependent on assessment of credibility of | |
| witnesses combined with contemporary materials, objectively | |
| established facts and the apparent logic of events – oral contract | |
| established. | |
| CIVIL - CONTRACTS - claim in the alternative by defendants | |
| against third-party builder for contribution or indemnity – claim | |
| that defendants paid third-party builder for concreting work carried | |
| out by plaintiff– whether payment of any particular amount to third | |
| party for concreting work established – whether Part 2.5 of Civil | |
| Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) available as basis for seeking | |
| contribution or indemnity – no contractual indemnity clause – no | |
| basis for defendants to seek contribution or indemnity from third | |
| party – claim against third party dismissed. | |
| Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 19, 21 |
| Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1619, Schedule 2 (Part 2.1) | |
| Cases Cited: | BH Australia Constructions Pty Ltd v Kapeller (2019) 100 NSWLR |
| 367 | |
| Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA | |
| 1833 | |
| F & G Sykes (Wessex) Ltd v Fine Fare Ltd [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep Flynn v PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] NSWSC | |
| 1640 | |
| Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 | |
| GEC Marconi Systems Pty Limited v BHP Information Technology | |
| Pty Limited [2003] FCA 50 | |
| Hawcroft General Trading Co Pty Ltd v Hawcroft [2017] NSWCA | |
| 91 | |
| John Holland Pty Ltd v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd [2015] | |
| NSWSC 451 | |
| Kizmann v De Maine (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 139 | |
| Masterton Homes Pty Ltd v Palm Assets Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA; | |
| 261 ALR 382 | |
| Realestate.com.au Pty Ltd v Hardingham; RP Data Pty Ltd v | |
| Hardingham [2022] HCA 39; 277 CLR 115 | |
| Re Kabawand Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Limited [1989] | |
| FCA 131 | |
| Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 | |
| Parties: | Concrete Menders Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) |
| Kobra Ghiasvand (First Defendant) | |
| Ali Ghiasvand (Second Defendant) | |
| Flexible Constructions Pty Ltd (Third Party) | |
| Representation: | Counsel |
| B Buckland (Plaintiff and Third Party) | |
| J Moffett (First and Second Defendants ) | |
| Solicitors | |
| Johannessen Legal (Plaintiff and Third Party) | |
| Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (First and Second Defendants) | |
| File Number: | CS 60 of 2023 |
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HASSALL
Introduction
1. In these proceedings the plaintiff company, Concrete Menders Pty Ltd
(plaintiff/plaintiff concreting company), alleges that, by way of an oral agreement
entered into in about March or April 2021, it was engaged by the defendants, Kobra
Ghiasvand and her son Ali Ghiasvand (together, the defendants), to provide
concreting services as part of the construction of a new residence at 17 Sodersten
Street, Taylor, Australian Capital Territory (Taylor Site/Site). The pouring of a concrete
slab, and later some rectification work (Concreting Work), was undertaken by the
plaintiff between July 2021 and November 2021. The plaintiff rendered invoices in
August 2021, November 2021 and May 2022, each of which was sent by email to the
second defendant. The defendants did not pay the plaintiff. Ultimately, the plaintiff
commenced proceedings against the defendants for the amount specified in its May
2022 invoice, namely $78,988.79, as a liquidated debt, plus interest and costs.
2. The defendants do not dispute that the plaintiff carried out the Concreting Work but
deny any liability to the plaintiff. The defendants say that they entered into a written
contract (or, more precisely, two consecutive written contracts) for the construction of
an entire residence at the Taylor Site with a third party, being Flexible Constructions
Pty Ltd (Flexible Constructions/third-party builder). The defendants say that the
Concreting Work carried out by the plaintiff can only have been pursuant to a request
and subcontract from the third-party builder.
3. The defendants further assert that they actually paid the third-party builder for
completion of the “base” or slab stage of work at the Taylor Site, which by necessary
implication must have included the Concreting Work. The defendants rely on receipts
issued by the third-party builder in January 2022 purporting to acknowledge receipt of
$85,500 from the defendants paid for that specific purpose. On this basis, the
defendants say that, if they are found to be liable to the plaintiff concreting company
pursuant to an oral contract – the existence of which they deny – they seek 100%
contribution or alternatively indemnity from the third-party builder (whom the
defendants joined as a third party to the proceedings).
4. For its part, the third-party builder says that:
1. notwithstanding its issue of the abovementioned receipts, it was never in fact
paid by the defendants for completion of the slab stage at the Taylor Site and
had no responsibility at all for the Concreting Work carried out by the plaintiff;
2. the receipts were, in substance, part of an ongoing charade to facilitate the
defendants’ obtaining of a construction loan to pay for the balance of
construction work still to be carried out at the Taylor Site;
3. the written contracts which it entered into with the defendants likewise
represented only part of its true contractual relationship with the defendants,
which was always premised on the understanding that the defendants, who
were price sensitive, would engage and pay separately for some contractors
(including the concreter) themselves, and would also themselves carry out
some of the non-specialised construction work at the Site, as a cost-saving
measure.
5. On this basis, the third-party builder both supports the plaintiff’s claim against the
defendants and denies any liability to contribute to or indemnify the defendants against
any liability which the defendants may be found to have to the plaintiff concreting
company. The plaintiff and third-party builder were represented by the same legal team
at the hearing.
6. It can readily be seen that the positions of the plaintiff concreting company and third-
party builder on the one hand, and the defendants on the other, are squarely
inconsistent. The court’s resolution of the issues in dispute will depend to a significant
extent on my assessment of the relative credibility of the witnesses relied on by each
party, as well, of course, as the identification and proper application of the principles
relevant to evaluating the contractual and asserted contractual relationships between
the parties.
Dramatis personae
7. The corporate entities and natural persons associated with each party are summarised
below. All of the witnesses who gave evidence at the hearing are or were members of
the Persian community in Canberra. A number of them gave evidence through Farsi
interpreters.
Plaintiff
Concrete Menders Pty Ltd (ACN 638 063 920)
Associated individuals:Mr Behzad (“Ben”) Kehrig – sole director.
Mr Morteze (aka “Mori”) Hangi – office manager who coordinated the plaintiff’s
work regarding the Taylor Site.
Ms Mahsa Nazemi – former office employee of the plaintiff involved in issuing
invoices and sending emails relating to the plaintiff’s work at the Taylor Site.
Mr Hadi Zarandi – foreman involved in carrying out the plaintiff’s concreting
work at the Taylor Site.
Mr Ehsan Bahrami – former consultant to the plaintiff and personal friend of its
sole director, Mr Kehrig, who also carried out work at the Taylor Site.
Mr Ali Masoumi – a former estranged employee of Concrete Menders who at
one point was identified as a witness for the defendants but who ultimately was
not called as a witness by any party.
Defendants
Ms Kobra (aka “Sheri”/”Shari”) Ghiasvand, the first defendant.
Mr Ali Ghiasvand, son of Kobra and Daryosh Ghiasvand, the second defendant.
Associated individuals:
Mr Daryosh (aka “Dani”) Ghiasvand, the first defendant’s husband (not a party
to the proceedings).
Morteza (aka “Moray”) Bahrami, the Ghiasvands’ accountant, who introduced
the defendants to both the builder with whom they initially negotiated for
construction of a residence at the Taylor Site but did not ultimately proceed
(Horizon Makers Group – see below) and Flexible Constructions.
Ms Tina Pham, a loan broker who facilitated the obtaining of finance by the
defendants.
Third party
Flexible Constructions Pty Ltd (ACN 612 152 066)
Associated individuals:
Mr Afshin Shahbaz (aka “Boz”) – third party’s sole director.
Other relevant entities and individuals
Horizon Makers Construction Group (or similar) – the first builder with whom the
defendants negotiated for the construction of a residence on the Taylor site (prior to
their engagement of Flexible Constructions).
Associated individuals:
Mr Ehsan (“Sam”) Shareifi – director of Horizon Makers Construction Group.
8. Without any intended disrespect, the members of the Ghiasvand family will be referred
to as Mrs Ghiasvand (the first defendant), Mr Ghiasvand Jnr (the second defendant),
and Mr Ghiasvand Snr (husband of the first defendant and father of the second
defendant). Where it is necessary to refer to all three members of the Ghiasvand
family, they are referred to as “the Ghiasvands”.
Background
9. Notwithstanding the diametrical opposition of the parties on the ultimate questions of
liability, in the course of the hearing it became apparent that there were many factual
matters which either were not in dispute, or which in my assessment were incapable
of dispute. It is appropriate to begin with a detailed recounting of these background
facts (highlighting, where convenient, the areas of disagreement).
Friendship between Mr Kehrig, Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr
10. The first defendant, Mrs Ghiasvand, and the sole director of the plaintiff concreting
company, Mr Kehrig, met in mid-2019 at an English language class in Canberra. Both
are members of the Persian community in the ACT. At some stage thereafter, Mr
Kehrig commenced attending the premises of a barber shop at the Westfield Shopping
Centre in Belconnen called “VIP Cuts” (VIP Cuts). VIP Cuts was, on the evidence,
owned by the first and second defendants, Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Jnr. Mr
Kehrig attended VIP Cuts from time to time from about 2020 onwards for the purpose
of socialising with Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr.
11. Mr Ghiasvand Snr is a disability pensioner who was involved in a motor vehicle
accident in around 2009. As a result of the accident, Mr Ghiasvand Snr suffered a
broken neck, fractured vertebrae and an injury to his hand. As a result, Mr Ghiasvand
Snr has limited movement but, in his own words, “could do personal daily chores”.
Although Mr Ghiasvand Snr was not an owner of VIP Cuts and denied being a paid
employee, it appears he attended the shop premises regularly.
12. A friendship developed between Mr Kehrig on the one hand and Mrs Ghiasvand and
Mr Ghiasvand Snr on the other hand. Among other things, during 2019 and 2020, Mr
Kehrig, Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr went shopping together, went on
vacation together and attended each other’s houses for meals. There was text
message communication between one or both of Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand
Snr on the one hand, and Mr Kehrig on the other, about personal and private matters
of a nature consistent with a close friendship. Various photographs admitted into
evidence show what appears in these early stages to have been a warm, congenial
relationship. Mr Kehrig described his interaction with the Ghiasvands as one of “best
friends”.
13. At some point, the friendship between Mr Kehrig, Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand
Snr became known to the Ghiasvands’ son, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr, the second defendant.
14. In October 2020, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr located online a baby cockatoo which the
Ghiasvands wished to purchase, being one of a pair of cockatoos in Sydney. Mr Kehrig
travelled to Sydney for the purpose of collecting the cockatoo on behalf of the
Ghiasvands, and ultimately decide to acquire the second cockatoo himself. Thereafter,
one of the reasons why Mr Kehrig and the Ghiasvands socialised together was to allow
the two birds also to socialise.
15. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr was in direct contact with Mr Kehrig from at least 14 October 2020
onwards. On that date, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr texted his (then) home address 11 Ruzicka
Street, Taylor, to Mr Kehrig, possibly in connection with the delivery of the cockatoo to
that address.
The defendants purchase the Taylor Site
16. In late 2020, the defendants entered into a contract to purchase the undeveloped
Taylor Site. The Ghiasvands, or some of them, apparently already owned the
residence located at 11 Ruzicka Street, Taylor. It is not clear why Mrs Ghiasvand and
Mr Ghiasvand Jnr (rather than Mr Ghiasvand Snr) were the purchasing parties. It is
possible that, because Mr Ghiasvand Snr is a disability pensioner, owning an asset
may have had an avoidable effect on his pension payments. Regardless, as is set out
below, Mr Ghiasvand Snr nevertheless came to have significant involvement in the
construction of a new residence at the new Site.
17. Settlement of the defendants’ purchase took place on 21 March 2021. On the same
date, there was a barbecue at the Cotter Dam attended by Mr Kehrig, Mrs Ghiasvand,
Mr Ghiasvand Snr, and two associates of the plaintiff concreting company – Mr Leo
Smith (an employee) and Mr Ali Masoumi (at the time, a part owner and employee). Mr Ghiasvand Jnr did not attend. There is some dispute about the purpose for and
what happened at the barbeque. Mr Kehrig contends that the barbeque was partly to
celebrate the defendants’ acquisition of the Taylor Site and that the possibility of the
plaintiff concreting company carrying out work at the Taylor Site was discussed. Mrs
Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr deny that the barbeque had anything to do with the
Taylor Site and deny that there was any conversation about the plaintiff concreting
company being involved in construction work to be carried out there.
The Ghiasvands’ interaction with a first builder
18. On 12 April 2021, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr sent an SMS message to Mr Kehrig identifying
the street address for the Taylor Site and attaching PDF plans for the proposed
residence at the Site. The purpose of this communication and the context in which it
occurred are disputed. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr asserts that he forwarded the plans to Mr
Kehrig only because he was directed to do so by the builder with whom the defendants
were engaging at the time, Mr Shareifi. By comparison, the plaintiff asserts that the
forwarding of the plans represented further confirmation of an arrangement which had
been negotiated in the following previous alleged phone calls:
1. a call from Mr Ghiasvand Snr to Mr Kehrig on 1 April 2021 advising that the
Ghiasvands had located a builder (Mr Sam Shareifi) and confirming the request
for the plaintiff concreting company to undertake concreting work at the Site;
and
2. a call from Mr Ghiasvand Jnr to Mr Kehrig on 7 April 2021 further confirming
the proposed arrangements.
Mr Ghiasvand Snr and Mr Ghiasvand Jnr respectively denied the alleged phone calls
on 1 and 7 April 2021.
19. On 15 and 16 April 2021 a phone number which it was agreed belonged to Mr Shareifi
attempted to call and then exchanged text messages with Mr Kehrig. On 15 April 2021,
Mr Shareifi advised Mr Kehrig of the location of his business premises in Manuka and
on 16 April 2021 Mr Shareifi asked if it would be possible to “boush [push] the meeting”
to 5.00pm. Mr Shareifi also sent Mr Kehrig a link to his Instagram profile.
20. On about 16 April 2021, or possibly on 20 April 2021, there was a meeting with Mr
Shareifi at his office in Manuka regarding the new residence proposed to be built at the
Taylor Site. It is common ground that at least Mrs Ghiasvand, Mr Ghiasvand Snr and
Mr Shareifi attended, but who else attended and what was said is otherwise the subject
of dispute.
21. Mr Kehrig’s evidence was to the effect that he also attended the meeting and that
during the meeting Mrs Ghiasvand said words to the effect: “Ben [Mr Kehrig] will do
the concrete works and will be responsible for it and this will not be included in the
building contract with you. Concrete works will not be your concern.” Mr Kehrig made
no mention of Mr Ghiasvand Jnr being present at the meeting.
By comparison, according to Mrs Ghiasvand, Mr Ghiasvand Snr and Mr Ghiasvand
Jnr himself, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr also attended the meeting with Mr Shareifi, but
Mr Kehrig did not. Other than being told by Mr Shareifi that Mr Kehrig would be doing
the concrete slab for the proposed residence, the Ghiasvands deny any discussion
along the lines asserted by Mr Kehrig.
23. Mr Shareifi was not called by either party and no documentary record of the meeting
was tendered. Nonetheless, it was in effect common ground that, however it came
about, it was mentioned by Mr Shareifi that the plaintiff concreting company would do
the concreting work for the proposed residence at the Taylor Site.
24. On 18 May 2021, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr sent Mr Kehrig what appears to be a screenshot
describing different flavours, possibly of “vape” products. This suggests some social
element to the relationship between Mr Ghiasvand Jnr and Mr Kehrig by this time.
| 25. |
|
([email protected]) by text message to Mr Kehrig.
26. Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Kehrig and their respective cockatoos were photographed
together at a social occasion on 29 May 2021.
The defendants engage the third-party builder
27. By early June 2021, the defendants were negotiating with a new builder in relation to
the proposed residence at the Taylor Site – Mr Afshin Shahbaz, the director of Flexible
Constructions, the third-party builder. Mr Shahbaz, who was also introduced to the
Ghiasvands by their accountant, attended a meeting with the Ghiasvands at the
premises of VIP Cuts to discuss the proposed job. Mr Shahbaz reviewed plans for the
proposed residence. Otherwise, what was said at the meeting is disputed. The
defendants also contended that, given the subsequent execution of a written contract
(see below), evidence of any precontractual negotiations at the meeting is irrelevant
and inadmissible.
28. On 11 June 2021, Mr Shahbaz emailed to the defendants what he described as a
standard form MBA home building contract (First Written Contract). Despite a
pleading by the third-party builder to the contrary, it appears that the First Written Contract was electronically executed by the parties (COVID restrictions were in place
at the time). On its face, the First Written Contract, among other things:
1. imposed an obligation on the third-party builder to carry out the entirety of the
proposed construction work (subject to a builder’s usual entitlement to
subcontract part of the work) for the sum of $420,000; and
2. required the defendants to pay the whole of the contract sum to the third-party
builder in the stages set out in a Progress Payments Schedule, which among
other things:
i. required the defendants to pay the third-party builder an initial deposit
of $42,000; and
ii. required the defendants, upon completion of the “Base” stage
(“Preparation of slab, Slab works all completed”) to pay the third-party
builder a sum of $63,000.
29. At clause 9, the First Written Contract provided that the defendants were to ensure that
the third-party builder had exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the Site and were
only to come onto the site, to inspect progress, with the explicit permission of the third-
party builder. At clause A6, the First Written Contract described the defendants’
“Sources of funds” as “TBA”. Clause A19 (entitled “MATERIALS TO BE SUPPLIED
BY, OR ITEMS OF WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT BY, THE OWNER”) contained the
entry “N/A”.
30. Also forming part of the First Written Contract was an undated “Inclusion List”. The
Inclusion List specified among other things various kitchen and bathroom appliances
and finishes, a floor and wall tile allowance, and stated that “Pre-Construction Services”
were to include among other things Master Builders Association Building Insurance
and “Surveyed & certified”.
31. Neither the First Written Contract nor the “Inclusion List” made any reference to the
defendants paying or being liable to make any payment to any third party. The
Inclusion List on its face provided that the cost of builder’s warranty insurance, and
surveying and certification costs, were “included” in the Contract and therefore payable
by the third-party builder out of the overall contract price.
32. Whether the defendants had secured a construction loan at the time of the First Written
Contract was the subject of conflicting evidence. At one point, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr
asserted that a loan had been obtained at around the time the First Written Contract
was entered into. On the other hand, evidence of correspondence with a loan broker, tendered by the defendants themselves, suggests that loan detailed were not finalised
until December 2021 and that no actual loan funds were forthcoming until early
February 2022.
33. What is clear, from evidence tendered by the defendants themselves, in the form of a
payment schedule (Payment Schedule), is that, from 15 June 2021 onwards, the
defendants commenced to make both piecemeal payments to the third-party builder
(not corresponding with the amounts specified in the Progress Payment Schedule) and
various additional payments to other parties (I return to the defendants’ Payment
Schedule later in these reasons).
“Management fee” invoice
34. On 16 June 2021, Mr Shareifi on behalf of the third-party builder rendered an invoice
to the defendants in the sum of $25,000 described as a “management fee”. Whether
the third-party builder ever received payment against this invoice is disputed. Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr claimed that a cash payment of $25,000 was handed over by him to
Mr Shahbaz at the premises of VIP Cuts on about 23 June 2021. Mr Shahbaz denied
this outright.
“Quote” supposedly issued by plaintiff concreting company to third-party builder
35. The defendants suggested, in cross-examination of some of the plaintiff’s witnesses,
that, on 29 June 2021, Mr Ali Masoumi on behalf of the plaintiff concreting company
sent by email a quote to the third-party builder in respect of the concreting work to be
undertaken at the Taylor Site.
36. If such a document was issued, it would point strongly towards the existence of a
subcontract between the third-party builder and the plaintiff concreting company of the
kind contended for by the defendants.
37. The witnesses for the plaintiff denied that any such document was ever issued and
referred to the invoice as a “fake”.
Construction work commences at Taylor Site
38. Between 6 July 2021 and 8 July 2021, the architect for the Taylor Site, the engineer,
Mr Shahbaz, and Mr Ghiasvand Jnr participated in an email exchange regarding a
required amendment to the plans for the proposed Taylor residence, apparently to
comply with plot ratio restrictions under the Territory Plan. Three options for addressing
the issue were provided by the architect and ultimately an email was received from Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr’s email address selecting the second of these options.
39. The evidence adduced during the hearing suggests that Mr Ghiasvand Jnr had access
to and utilised two email addresses, being [email protected] (which
appears to have been a personal email account) and [email protected] (which
appears to have been an email addressed associated with the VIP Cuts barber’s
business).
40. For reasons which are not clear, although the email approving the second option
proposed by the architect came from Mr Ghiasvand Jnr’s personal email address, and
notwithstanding that Mr Ghiasvand Snr claimed that he never used either of the two
email accounts, the email was signed off as “Dani” (i.e., as Mr Ghiasvand Snr).
41. On 12 July 2021, based on the amended plans, building approval was issued for the
proposed Taylor residence.
42. It was established that on the same date, 12 July 2021, Mr Shahbaz and Mr Kehrig
spoke to each other by telephone. It was ultimately common ground that this contact
represented their first contact of any kind with each other. Although neither of the
defendants was party to the phone calls, the defendants put in issue the purpose and
nature of these phone calls, a topic to which I return later.
43. The Site was cut in preparation for the pouring of concrete on 19 July 2021. Concrete
was poured on the Site on 20 and 21 July 2021 by a subcontractor engaged by the
plaintiff concreting company. Mr Shahbaz contacted the defendants’ structural
engineer on 20 July 2021, seeking urgent approval for a minor amendment to the
approved plans, stating that “we” were due to pour concrete on that date.
44. On 1 August 2021, Mr Kehrig, Mrs Ghiasvand, Mr Ghiasvand Snr and others were
photographed at the Kaleen residence of Mr Kehrig during a celebration of the birthday
of an employee of the plaintiff concreting company. The photos suggest the
relationship between the various attendees at that time remained friendly.
August 2021 invoices
45. On 3 August 2021, Mr Kehrig, on behalf of the plaintiff concreting company, sent two
invoices by email to the personal email address of Mr Ghiasvand Jnr
([email protected]) (August 2021 Invoices) The first was an invoice in
the sum of $60,500 referable to 430m2 of “Slab Concrete including Material and Steel”.
The second was an invoice in the sum of $944.35 referable to “CONCRETE PUMPING
(36m boom pump hire 20/7/21)” and “Liaising and arrangement”). The email attaching
the invoices was addressed to “Dear Dani” (i.e., Mr Ghiasvand Snr) and stated among other things “Hope all is well with you. Please consider our attached invoices here.”
The invoices themselves were not addressed to any individual.
46. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr agreed that he received this email and the attachments and did not
respond to them. A suggestion that he had discussed them with Mr Shahbaz, and that
Mr Shahbaz had described them as a “quote”, was not put to Mr Shahbaz.
47. There is no suggestion that Mr Kehrig separately sent the August 2021 invoices to the
third-party builder.
Further communications directly between second defendant and the plaintiff concreting
company
48. Between 15 and 17 September 2021, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr sent “plans & CAD [Computer-
Assisted Design] files” for the Taylor residence both by text message and email to the
plaintiff concreting company. The reason he did so is disputed. The third-party builder
was not copied into these communications.
49. Between 21 and 23 September 2021, Mr Kehrig sent by email to Mr Ghiasvand Jnr
first a copy of a quotation received from a supplier of steel and formwork components
in the sum of $14,197.05, apparently referable to the concrete slab by the plaintiff
concreting company in July 2021, and then a remittance advice showing that the
relevant sum had been paid. There is no suggestion that these documents were
forwarded by Mr Kehrig to the third-party builder.
Second written contract between defendants and third-party builder
50. On or about 27 September 2021, the defendants and the third-party builder each
executed a second written contract relating to the proposed residence at the Taylor
Site (Second Written Contract). There was no dispute that the First Written Contract
was effectively abandoned by the defendants and third-party builder, but a dispute as
to why this was so.
51. The form and terms of the Second Written Contract were almost identical to the First
Written Contract, with limited exceptions:
1. the overall contract price was increased from $420,000 to $570,000;
2. the amounts specified in the Progress Payments Schedule as payable for each
stage of work had increased – in particular, the required deposit amount had
increased to $57,000 and the amount payable for completion of the slab stage
had increased from $63,000 to $85,500;
3. at clause A6 under the heading “Sources of funds”, “ANZ Bank” was now
identified as the relevant lending authority; and
4. clause A19 entitled “MATERIALS TO BE SUPPLIED BY, OR ITEMS OF WORK
TO BE CARRIED OUT BY, THE OWNER” had been amended from “N/A” to
“All Materials”.
52. It is clear, again from the defendants’ own Payment Schedule, that after the Second
Written Contract came to effect, the defendants continued to make both piecemeal
payments to the third-party builder (not corresponding with the amounts specified in
either version of the Progress Payment Schedule) as well as various additional
payments to other parties.
Rectification work by plaintiff concreting company
53. In October 2021, the certifier for the Taylor residence provided a report regarding the
“Footings & Slab” stage indicating that aspects of the concreting work carried out by
the plaintiff concreting company were defective or incomplete. There were a series of
communications:
1. the report was emailed by the certifier to Mr Shahbaz (the third-party builder)
at 5.20pm on 11 October 2021;
2. at 5.30pm, Mr Shahbaz forwarded the certifier’s report to the Ghiasvands using
the email address apparently associated with the VIP Cuts business, being
3. at 5.58pm, the certifier’s report was forwarded by iMessage from a mobile
phone number associated with Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr (who
stated they both used the relevant phone number) to Mr Kehrig’s mobile
number;
4. at 6.31pm, a copy of the certifier’s report was forwarded as a PDF attachment
from Mr Ghiasvand Jnr’s mobile number to Mr Kehrig’s mobile number;
5. at 6.34pm, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr emailed a copy of “Marked Up Slab Plans” from
the email address used by him to the plaintiff concreting company’s email
address ([email protected]); and
6. at 6.37pm, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr emailed a PDF attachment entitled “210988 –
Taylor 16_94 – 17 Sodersten Street – 2. Footings & Slab (1)” from the email
address used by him to plaintiff concreting company’s email
54. There is no suggestion that the third-party builder ever forwarded the certifier’s report
directly to the plaintiff concreting company.
55. On 20 October 2021, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr on behalf of himself and his mother transferred
a sum of $10,000 to the bank account of the third-party builder accompanied by the
narration “slab stage”. This was one of the “piecemeal” payments made by the
defendants to the third-party builder which I have referred to above. I return to this
particular payment and its significance later in these reasons.
56. In November 2021, apparently in response to the certifier’s report, the plaintiff
concreting company conducted further work at the Taylor site. It is not clear precisely
what work was carried out, but it appears some further 60m2 of concrete was required
to be poured.
Third-party builder sends invoices for deposit and for completion of slab stage
57. On 11 November 2021, the third-party builder sent an email to the two email addresses
used by Mr Ghiasvand Jnr entitled “Outstanding 2 invoices” and attaching:
1. tax invoice no. 01276 dated 5 November 2021 referring to the deposit of
$57,000 payable according to the Progress Payments Schedule contained in
the Second Written Contract; and
2. tax invoice no. 01279 dated 10 November 2021 referring to the amount of
$85,500 payable in respect of the completion of the “base”/slab stage according
to the Progress Payments Schedule contained in the Second Written Contract.
58. The third-party builder contends that, notwithstanding its issue of the above invoices,
it never received payment from the defendants for the completion of the base/slab
stage.
November 2021 Invoice
59. On 18 November 2021, the plaintiff concreting company sent a further invoice in
respect of the Concreting Work to the personal email address of Mr Ghiasvand Jnr.
There is no suggestion that the plaintiff also sent this invoice to the third-party builder.
The invoice was identical to the first of the August 2021 Invoices issued by the plaintiff
concreting company, save that it contained an additional entry described as “60 m^3
Extract Concrete” and the total had increased from $60,500 to $73,000 (November
Invoice). Unlike the August 2021 Invoices, the November Invoice was addressed to a
specific individual, namely, “Ali Ghiasvand” of 17 Soderstan st [sic], Taylor” (i.e., to the
second defendant).
60. The email of 18 November 2021 which attached the invoice was this time addressed
to “Dear Ali” (i.e., Mr Ghiasvand Jnr, not Mr Ghiasvand Snr) and stated, “Please find
attached the invoice D0002 for the Taylor Jobsite.”
61. As with the August 2021 Invoices, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr agreed that he received the
November Invoice and that he did not respond to it. His stated reasons for not doing
so are discussed below.
Defendants secure a construction loan; defendants’ loan broker requests evidence that
slab stage payment (and other progress payments) have been paid
62. Notwithstanding an assertion by Mr Ghiasvand Jnr in his oral evidence that the
defendants obtained a construction loan at about the time the First Written Contract
was entered into, documentary evidence tendered on behalf the defendants indicates
that formal details of a loan from the ANZ Bank were not finalised until about
6 December 2021. On that date, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr forwarded to the defendants’ loan
broker, Ms Tina Pham, a copy of an invoice for “frames and trusses” received from the
third-party builder and inquired “if there is any updates from the bank”. Ms Pham
responded by reciting, among other things, that:
1. a total of $308,950 would be available by way of loan from the ANZ Bank to
contribute towards the total contract price of $570,000, with the defendants to
contribute the remaining amount of $261,050;
2. the defendants had “already contributed” $217,300 comprising:
i. $57,000 as the deposit payable under the Second Written Contract;
ii. $85,500 as the payment for completion of the base/slab stage under
the Second Written Contract;
iii. $74,800 as part of the payment for completion of the frames and trusses
stage under the Second Written Contract;
3. the remaining amount required to be contributed by the defendants ($43,750)
would comprise of:
i. a payment of $39,200, being the remaining amount payable under the
Second Written Contract in respect of completion of the frames and
trusses stage; and
ii. a contribution of $4,550 towards completion of the “external cover”
stage (when the third-party builder provided an invoice for completion of that stage), with the bank to pay the remaining amount payable for
that stage ($109,450); and
4. “moving forward”, every remaining stage payment would be paid by ANZ.
63. Ms Pham requested that receipts be provided in respect of the previous payment by
the defendants of the deposit, base stage and $74,800 towards the frames and trusses
stage. Ms Pham also requested that the invoice for the “external cover” stage be
provided in due course.
64. It is apparent from the above email correspondence that the construction loan from
ANZ was provided on the basis (or assumption) that the defendants would contribute
about 45.8% of the total projected construction costs ($261,050 of a total amount of
$570,000, of which they had “already” contributed $217,300).
65. On 23 December 2021, as part of the same email chain, Ms Pham requested that “Boz”
(Mr Shahbaz) send to her “receipts of the below stages: Deposit $57,000; Slab
$85,500; Frame & Trusses $35,600” (emphasis added). This email is consistent with
the ANZ Bank wanting documentary evidence that the builder had completed the
earlier stages of construction and that the defendants had made the earlier financial
contributions as described by Ms Pham.
66. On 24 January 2022, apparently in response to the requests from Ms Pham, Mr
Shahbaz issued a receipt purporting to acknowledge receipt from the defendants of
the sum of $85,000 being “Payment for new build – received 2/4 Slab”. A further receipt
was issued by the third-party builder on 31 January 2022 for a sum of $500 (noting that
the Second Written Contract provided for payment of a total of $85,500 for the
base/slab stage).
67. On 4 February 2022, the ANZ Bank made the first of two payments on behalf of the
defendants to the third-party builder, being a sum of $109,450 referable to the
remaining amount payable, according to the Second Written Contract, in respect of
completion of the “external cover” stage. Later, on 31 March 2022, the ANZ paid
$114,000 to the third-party builder, apparently referable to the completion of the
“fixings” stage under the Second Written Contract. (Subsequently, and before the
construction work was finished, the relationship between the defendants and the third-
party builder was terminated – see below.)
May 2022 Invoice
68. The third-party builder continued to work on the construction of the Taylor residence
until mid-May 2022. Progress appears to have been hampered, among other things,
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
69. On 13 May 2022, the plaintiff concreting company sent by email to Mr Ghiasvand Jnr
a further invoice in respect of the Concreting Work. On this occasion, for the first time,
the plaintiff concreting company “cc’d” the third-party builder into the relevant email.
The attached invoice still bore a date of 18 November 2021, but contained a number
of additional entries compared to the November 2011 Invoice:
1. the total invoice amount had increased from $73,000 to $78,988.79;
2. there were the following additional expense items:
i. “7.5 m^3 Concrete for 50 Piers+ cutting wall and jackhammering two
days two boys” - $2,500;
ii. “Two stairs (2500$ each)” - $5,000;
iii. “Concrete Pump” - $944.35; and
3. there was acknowledgement of a “receipt” of a part-payment of $4,000 (May
2022 Invoice).
70. The “Concrete Pump” item in the May 2022 Invoice seems to be a reference back to
the second of the August 2021 Invoices sent to Mr Ghiasvand Jnr’s email address
referencing the cost incurred by the plaintiff concreting company in respect of concrete
pumping subcontractor.
71. It is possible that some of the other new expense items contained in the May 2022
Invoice are referable to work required as a result of defects identified in the certifier’s
report of October 2021. No clear evidence was given about these matters by any party.
Likewise, no party gave evidence relating to a part-payment of $4,000 supposedly
made by the defendants to the plaintiff concreting company.
72. The email attaching the May 2022 Invoice was addressed to “Dear Ali”, stated that it
was a “final reminder” and that “if no payment is made, we will try legal methods”. In
addition, the May 2022 Invoice, rather than being addressed to Mr Ghiasvand Jnr only,
was addressed in the following manner:
“Kobra & Ali Ghiasvand
Attn: Flexible Constructions Pty Ltd
17 Soderstan st, Taylor, ACT [sic] [email protected]”
73. The next day, 14 May 2022, the plaintiff concreting company sent a further email and
invoice with the explanation “The computer generated a wrong date in the invoice sent
yesterday. Please find the updated invoice attached.” Although the relevant email was
addressed to “Dear Ali”, this email and invoice version was sent only to the third-party
builder.
Termination of contractual relationship between third-party builder and defendants
74. On 15 May 2022, following an evening phone call and verbal dispute between Mr
Ghiasvand Snr and Mr Shahbaz, the contractual relationship between the defendants
and the third-party builder came to an end. The reasons for the termination of the
contractual relationship are disputed. What is not in dispute is that, after 15 May 2022,
the third-party builder did no further work at the Taylor Site.
75. On 27 May 2022, the plaintiff concreting company sent a further “courtesy reminder”
to the personal email address of Mr Ghiasvand Jnr attaching a version of the May 2022
Invoice and requesting payment of $78,988.79.
Alleged cash payment of $55,000 from third-party builder to plaintiff concreting company
76. In cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, the defendants introduced hearsay
evidence of a supposed cash payment of $55,000 made at some unspecified time by
the third-party builder to the plaintiff concreting company at the Taylor Site.
77. I discuss the evidence relating to the alleged payment later in these reasons.
Alleged conversation at Taylor site on 12 June 2022
78. Mr Kehrig and his colleague Mr Ehsan Bahrami gave evidence that they were
summoned to a meeting with the defendants at the Taylor Site on 12 June 2022,
following which they had a significant conversation. That any such meeting and
conversation occurred was denied outright by Mr Ghiasvand Jnr and Mr Ghiasvand
Snr.
Issues in dispute
79. There is considerable overlap in relation to the factual and legal issues in dispute as
between the plaintiff concreting company and the defendants on the one hand, and the
defendants and the third-party builder on the other. For example, both the plaintiff
concreting company and the third-party builder contend, albeit for slightly different
reasons, that the plaintiff concreting company had a separate oral contract with the
defendants to carry out the Concreting Work and, as a corollary, that the Written Contracts between the defendants and the third-party builder did not reflect the entire
or (in some respects) actual agreement between them. By comparison, the builders
say that they never contracted with the plaintiff, but that if they did, they have paid the
third-party builder for the Concreting Work and therefore the third-party builder should
contribute to or indemnify the defendants against any liability they may have to the
plaintiff.
80. Aside from the issues identified by the parties, there are some additional matters which
in my assessment require determination by the court in order for me to adjudicate on
the overall dispute between them.
81. The issues can conveniently be grouped as follows:
1. factual issues going to my evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, including:
i. whether the plaintiff concreting company on 29 June 2021 issued a
“quote” directly to the third-party builder in respect of the Concreting
Work;
ii. whether the third-party builder at any time made a cash payment of
$55,000 to the plaintiff concreting company;
iii. whether Mr Shahbaz received a $25,000 cash payment from Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr at VIP Cuts on about 23 June 2021;
iv. whether Mr Ghiasvand Jnr carried out construction work at the Taylor
Site, and if so the extent and nature of that work; and
v. whether the June 2022 conversation referred to by Mr Kehrig and Mr
Bahrami took place;
2. in relation to the question whether an oral contract of the type alleged by the
plaintiff concreting company came into existence between it and the defendants
in about March or April 2021:
i. whether there was any discussion between Mr Kehrig, on behalf of the
plaintiff concreting company, and Mrs Ghiasvand and/or Mr Ghiasvand
Snr of concreting work to be undertaken at the Taylor site at the Cotter
Dam barbeque on 21 March 2021;
ii. whether Mr Ghiasvand Snr and/or Mr Ghiasvand Jnr called Mr Kehrig
in early April 2021 to confirm the request for the plaintiff concreting
company to carry out concreting work for the proposed Taylor
residence;
iii. whether or not Mr Kehrig attended a meeting with Mr Shareifi of Horizon
Makers Construction Group and the Ghiasvands in Manuka on or about
16 or 20 April 2021 and what was said at the meeting; and
iv. whether there was ever sufficiently certain discussion of the terms on
which concreting work would be carried out by the plaintiff concreting
company;
3. in relation to the question whether the alleged oral agreement continued to be
in force once the third-party builder became involved, including:
i. whether, as the defendants assert, the continued involvement of the
plaintiff concreting company in the Taylor Site project was a
coincidence;
ii. the nature and purpose of the communication between Mr Kehrig and
Mr Shahbaz in July 2021; and
iii. why there were text message and email communications (including
invoices) between the defendants and Mr Kehrig relating to the
proposed Taylor residence which did not include the third-party builder;
iv. the significance and effect of the Written Contracts executed by the
defendants and third-party builder, including:
1. when the defendants obtained finance for the construction work
to be carried out at the Taylor Site;
2. whether Mr Ghiasvand Jnr and Mr Ghiasvand Snr themselves
carried out construction work at the Taylor Site, and if so the
extent and nature of that work;
3. why the parties abandoned the First Written Contract in favour
of the Second Written Contract;
4. the significance of the Payment Schedule tendered on behalf of
the defendants;
5. whether the defendants actually paid the third-party builder for
the Concreting Work; and
6. why Mr Ghiasvand Jnr failed to respond to any of the emails
from the plaintiff concreting company attaching invoices;
4. assuming the defendants are found to liable to the plaintiff concreting company
pursuant to the alleged oral contract:
i. whether the defendants’ liability under that agreement includes:
1. the additional work specified in the November 2021 Invoice; and
2. the further fees included in the May 2022 Invoice; and
ii. whether the third-party builder is liable to contribute to or indemnify the
defendants against the relevant liability.
Witnesses
82. Notwithstanding that the parties exchanged written witness statements in accordance
with directions by the court, and notwithstanding that all of those written statements
were entered into evidence on a costs application relating to an interlocutory
application, following a successful application by the defendants, at the hearing all
evidence including evidence in chief was given orally. Ten witnesses gave evidence
over four days - six for the plaintiff concreting company and third-party builder (the
witnesses and evidence for the plaintiff and third-party builder were coextensive) and
four for the defendants.
83. I set out below some brief observations regarding the evidence given by the key
witnesses (the evidence given by Mr Morteza Hangi and by Mr Leo Smith respectively
was not ultimately of great consequence given the issues in dispute and therefore is
not referred to).
Behrad (“Ben”) Kehrig
84. Mr Behzad Kehrig is the sole director, founder and owner of the plaintiff concreting
company. Mr Kehrig gave evidence through a Farsi interpreter. It was not clear that
he had a distinct recollection of some matters. Given the plaintiff’s counsel had
apparently been expecting evidence in chief to be given via witness statements and
Mr Kehrig was the first witness called, it is possible Mr Kehrig was not as fully prepared
as might otherwise have been the case.
85. In relation to the barbecue at the Cotter Dam on 21 March 2021, Mr Kehrig stated that
this occasion was a celebration of the defendant’s acquisition of the Taylor site. He
stated that, at some stage during this occasion, Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr
verbally requested him to do the concreting work required to build a residence at the
Taylor site, specifically “formwork, reinforcement, pouring the concrete, … organising
the pump”, “a package”.
86. Mr Kehrig stated that on 1 April 2021 he was called by Mr Ghiasvand Snr who said to
him words to the effect “We have found a builder. We would like you to come and meet with him. He would do all the other things and you do the concreting part of it.” Mr
Kehrig said that Mr Ghiasvand Snr told him that the name of the builder was Sam
Shareifi.
87. Mr Kehrig gave evidence that he attended a meeting with Mr Shareifi, Mrs Ghiasvand
and Mr Ghiasvand Snr at Manuka on about 16 April 2021. Mr Kehrig made no mention
of Mr Ghiasvand Jnr being present. During the meeting Mr Kehrig was introduced to
Mr Shareifi with the words “this is our concreter”. Mr Kehrig subsequently provided his
insurance number and other details to Mr Shareifi on the understanding that he would
be carrying out the concreting work for the proposed Taylor residence. In cross-
examination, it was put to Mr Kehrig that the following proposition was untrue – that
Mrs Ghiasvand said to Mr Shareifi at the meeting “Ben [Mr Kehrig] will do the concrete
works and will be responsible for it and this will not be included in the building contract
with you. Concrete works will not be your concern.” Mr Kehrig stated this was true.
In relation to his telephone calls with Mr Shahbaz on 12 July 2021, Mr Kehrig stated
that he had never spoken to Mr Shahbaz prior to these phone calls, did not know him
and had never done any work previously for Flexible Constructions. Mr Kehrig said
that Mr Shahbaz told Mr Kehrig that the quote Mr Kehrig had given was very low. Mr
Kehrig denied that the purpose of the phone calls was for Mr Shahbaz to engage Mr
Kehrig’s company as a subcontractor to carry out the concreting work at the Taylor
Site. He asserted that it would not have been possible to pour concrete on 19 July
2021 if he had only learned about the job on 12 July 2021. Mr Kehrig asserted (in
cross-examination) that he communicated the cost of the concreting job to Mrs
Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr.
89. Mr Kehrig was not taken to the August 2021 Invoices, but indicated he sent an email
to Mr Ghiasvand Jnr in September 2021 attaching confirmation that the plaintiff
concreting company had paid a supplier for steel products used in the concrete
reinforcement. He also confirmed the issue of the November 2021 and May 2022
Invoices and reminders.
90. Mr Kehrig denied that he had any contract with the third-party builder and asserted that
his contact about the concreting work was only with the various Ghiasvand family
members.
91. It was suggested to Mr Kehrig in cross-examination, by reference to a witness
statement of Mr Ali Masoumi, that on about 29 June 2021 Mr Masoumi, as a
representative of the plaintiff concreting company, emailed a quote to the third-party
builder for the proposed concreting work at the Taylor site. Mr Kehrig squarely rejected this proposition, describing the supposed “quote” as a “fake” which had never been
sent.
92. Next, again by reference to a witness statement of Mr Ali Masoumi, it was suggested
to Mr Kehrig that an employee of the plaintiff concreting company, Ms Nazemi, had
confided to Mr Masoumi that the plaintiff had received a cash payment of $55,000 from
the third-party builder in respect of the Concreting Work. Mr Kehrig rejected this
proposition.
93. Lastly, Mr Kehrig gave evidence of an occasion after his work at the Taylor Site had
finished, the precise date of which he could not recall, when he attended the Taylor
Site with his friend Mr Bahrami and met with Mrs Ghiasvand, Mr Ghiasvand Snr and
Mr Ghiasvand Jnr. There was then a discussion. Mr Kehrig said that, in reference to
what by that stage was a dispute between the Ghiasvands and Mr Shahbaz, Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr told him: “You have to come and fix this”. Mrs Ghiasvand then saying
words to the effect “If you don’t come to our side, you will never see any money from
us.” Mr Kehrig gave evidence that he responded by saying “I cannot do this” and had
then left with Mr Bahrami.
94. It was put to Mr Kehrig in cross-examination that the June 2022 conversation never
occurred and that there was no meeting involving the individuals he referred to at the
Taylor Site at that time. Mr Kehrig denied this.
95. Overall, Mr Kehrig impressed me as an honest though somewhat imprecise witness.
Mr Kehrig gave evidence in a straightforward, direct manner and did not hesitate prior
to answering questions. I accept Mr Kehrig’s assertion that, prior to the falling out
associated with the litigation in this case, he had a close friendship with Mrs Ghiasvand
and Mr Ghiasvand Snr and further accept that at least part of Mr Kehrig’s motivation
for carrying out the concreting work for the Taylor residence was a desire to assist his
(then) friends to build a new residence at the Taylor Site as cost-effectively as possible.
96. Importantly, as further discussed below, Mr Kehrig’s evidence on critical points was
corroborated by, in some instances, documentary evidence and in other instances by
evidence from other witnesses whom I accepted as reliable.
Mahsa Nazemi
97. Ms Nazemi was employed as a human resources manager and administrator for the
plaintiff concreting company between February 2021 and February 2023. Ms Nazemi
stated that during that period she exercised exclusive responsibility for the issuing of
invoices and quotes by the plaintiff concreting company.
98. Ms Nazemi indicated that, according to the records which she was (at the time)
responsible for maintaining, the last day of employment of Mr Ali Masoumi was 1 July
2021. This meant that Mr Masoumi could not have had involvement in or knowledge
of the Taylor job after this date. Ms Nazemi noted that thereafter she had had some
unsatisfactory personal dealings with Mr Masoumi whilst he was later overseas which
led her to question Mr Masoumi’s honesty.
99. Secondly, Ms Nazemi stated unequivocally that she never informed Mr Masoumi that
the plaintiff concreting company had received a cash payment of $55,000 from the
third-party builder. Ms Nazemi explained that to her knowledge no such payment had
in fact ever been received.
100. Thirdly, in relation to the “Quote” supposedly issued by Mr Masoumi on behalf of the
plaintiff concreting company on 29 June 2021, Ms Nazemi unequivocally asserted that
in her opinion the quote was a forgery and had never been sent. In support of this
assertion Ms Nazemi stated among other things:
1. the “quote” supposedly prepared by Mr Masoumi had several different features
from the “quotations” normally issued by her on behalf of the plaintiff, such as
the wrong style and colour of header, the wrong company logo and being
addressed to Mr Shahbaz personally rather than to his company;
2. a screenshot of the “sent email” folder for the plaintiff concreting company’s
email account for the period 24 June 2021 and 2 July 2021 indicated that no
such email (attaching the “quote”) had been sent by Mr Masoumi that period;
and
3. Ms Nazemi gave evidence that Mr Kehrig had specifically told her not to send
a quotation for the Taylor job, stating “No, he’s my friend and I need to help
them so don’t send a quote”.
101. Ms Nazemi gave evidence that in lieu of providing a quotation she had informed the
Ghiasvands of “the roughly price” for the concreting work which was to be performed,
being “about 60 grand”.
102. Ms Nazemi presented as a direct, open and sincere witness who gave very clear
evidence. As someone who had ceased working for the plaintiff concreting company
in February 2023, Ms Nazemi had no obvious reason for taking a side in the litigation
and my impression was that she simply wanted to assist the court to arrive at the truth.
Ultimately, as I will explain further below, I accepted Ms Nazemi’s evidence as to the
supposed “quote” and the supposed $55,000 cash payment as honest and correct.
Ehsan Bahrami
103. Mr Bahrami was engaged as a consultant for the plaintiff concreting company between
July and November 2021. He stated he has also been a friend of Mr Kehrig for a period
of about 10 years.
104. Mr Bahrami stated that he worked at the Taylor Site on behalf of the plaintiff concreting
company regularly between July and November 2021. Mr Bahrami stated that, during
that period, he observed both Mr Ghiasvand Jnr and Mr Ghiasvand Snr carrying out
work. In relation to Mr Ghiasvand Jnr, Mr Bahrami stated that he observed Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr carrying out tasks such as jackhammering, “hitting the floor”, and
“cutting the stuff”. In relation to Mr Ghiasvand Snr, Mr Bahrami stated that he had
worked side by side with Mr Ghiasvand Snr “like a soldier”. It is not entirely clear what
this was intended to convey, although a video was admitted into evidence showing Mr
Ghiasvand Snr positioned and using a pick hammer in a trench. Mr Bahrami
acknowledged that, because of Mr Ghiasvand Snr’s disability, his work had been
mainly “helping”, for example, setting up mesh and helping “in the trench”.
105. Mr Bahrami gave a vivid account of his involvement a meeting and conversation with
Mr Kehrig, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr, Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr. Mr Bahrami
explained that on a cold Sunday afternoon in June 2022, which he was now able to
place as 12 June 2022, he had been spending time with Mr Kehrig when Mr Kehrig
received a phone call from Mrs Ghiasvand who stated, “we have a problem with the
builder” and summoned them to a meeting at the Taylor Site. Mr Bahrami then
accompanied Mr Kehrig to the Site where they met with Mrs Ghiasvand, Mr Ghiasvand
Snr and Mr Ghiasvand Jnr. The Ghiasvands then explained that they had a problem
with “the builder, Mr Afshin” after which an exchange along the following lines occurred:
“They” said to Mr Kehrig and Mr Bahrami: “We have a problem. Can you stay
beside of this matter”.
Mr Bahrami suggested to Mr Kehrig, “based on his experience in Australia”,
that Mr Kehrig should say: “We are going to tell the true [sic] not matter that
come … we going to the court we going to tell the truth”. Mr Kehrig had in fact
then said this.
Mrs Ghiasvand had then said: “If you need your money, you should stay beside
us otherwise if you say against us you never, ever see your money in your
behind your back …”
106. It was put to Mr Bahrami in cross-examination that the above conversation had not
occurred; he rejected this as “completely wrong”. There was otherwise no particular
attempt to undermine the credibility of Mr Bahrami.
107. On balance, I am satisfied that Mr Bahrami was a credible and truthful witness.
Although a friend of Mr Kehrig, Mr Bahrami had no identifiable financial interest in the
outcome of the proceedings and appeared to me to be making an effort to assist the
court with a true account of his recollections.
Hadi Zarandi
108. Mr Zarandi has been an employee of the plaintiff concreting company since 2019 and
performed the role of foreman at the Taylor Site. He stated that he was at Mr Kehrig’s
house on a number of occasions when Mrs Ghiasvand, Mr Ghiasvand Snr and Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr were also present, and that the Taylor project was frequently discussed
between the attendees.
109. Mr Zarandi gave evidence as to his understanding of the arrangements between the
Ghiasvands and Mr Kehrig relating to the carrying out of the concrete work at the Taylor
site. According to Mr Zarandi, Mrs Ghiasvand told Mr Kehrig that they were short of
money and could not afford to pay up front for the concreting work. Mr Ghiasvand Snr
asked if Mr Kehrig if he was prepared to do the work on that basis. Mr Kehrig accepted
and advised Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr that they could pay for the work
later.
110. Mr Zarandi explained that Mr Kehrig himself had purchased the materials, including
steel and concrete, required for the Concreting Work and had even at one point
borrowed money from Mr Zarandi for that purpose. Mr Zarandi’s observation was that
the arrangement between Mr Kehrig and the Ghiasvands was a “friend to friend”
contract which Mr Kehrig had agreed to “because he respected a lot this family.”
111. It was put to Mr Zarandi that there had been no communications at all between Mr
Kehrig and the Ghiasvands about performing work at the Taylor Site. Mr Zarandi
denied this and said among other things “I saw it with my own eyes in that time, [Mr
Kehrig] accept and agree to pay for everything, that’s including labours, concrete steel
… he accepted to do whole the slab for them and they pay for him later”.
112. Mr Zarandi gave evidence that he saw both Mr Ghiasvand Snr and Mr Ghiasvand Jnr
working at the Taylor Site. He saw Mr Ghiasvand Snr doing work with Ehsan Bahrami
such as tidying mesh and shovelling, trying to help, whilst he observed Mr Ghiasvand Jnr at the site two or three times a week doing a lot of work such as helping with
digging, putting edge boards on and shovelling here and there.
113. Mr Zarandi stated that he did not meet Mr Shahbaz until November 2021 and until that
time did not know who the builder was for the Site. He accepted that Mr Shahbaz had
overall control of the Site and had issued some directions.
114. In my assessment Mr Zarandi was a reliable and honest witness. He had no direct
pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceedings and, in my assessment, appeared
to be endeavouring to assist the court with truthful evidence.
Afsin Shahbaz
115. Mr Shahbaz is both the director of, and licensed builder attached to the third-party
builder, Flexible Constructions. He gave evidence both as a witness for the plaintiff.
The third party adopted all of the evidence and submissions of the plaintiff. It is
necessary to recount his evidence in some detail.
Introduction to the defendants
116. Mr Shahbaz stated that he found out at the beginning of June 2021, from the
accountant that he apparently shared with the defendants, Mr Moray Bahrami, that the
Ghiasvands were building a house in Taylor. He was introduced to the Ghiasvands by
Mr Bahrami. He was aware at that time that the defendants’ relationship with the
previous builder, Mr Ehsan Shareifi, had fallen through but had never met Mr Shareifi
himself.
117. Mr Shahbaz stated that he then had a meeting with the Ghiasvand family (Mrs
Ghiasvand, Mr Ghiasvand Snr and Mr Ghiasvand Jnr) in their barber’s shop, “VIP Cuts”
in the Belconnen Mall. Mr Shahbaz was shown plans by the Ghiasvands. He was told
that the Ghiasvands had budgeted about $420,000 to build the new house; he denied
having provided an estimate of the cost of construction in that sum.
118. Mr Shahbaz stated that Mr Ghiasvand Snr told him that, using his contacts from
hairdressing, Mr Ghiasvand Snr would be able to organise a couple of tradespeople
himself, such as a concreter and plumber. Mr Shahbaz would have responsibility for
any trades required to hold licences and otherwise Mr Shahbaz’s job would be “just to
manage everything and look after the jobs”. Mr Shahbaz said that he understood that
the Ghiasvands would themselves pay independently any contractors they engaged
themselves.
119. Mr Shahbaz gave evidence that that he decided to help Mr Ghiasvand Snr, who he
noted was “disabled”, to build his “dream house” and was willing to do “whatever it
takes”.
Entry into written contracts with the defendants
120. Mr Shahbaz agreed that he had emailed the First Written Contract to the defendants
on 11 June 2022. Over objection from the defendants as to relevance, Mr Shahbaz
asserted that the reason that he entered into a written contract with the defendants
was to facilitate the obtaining of a construction loan and builder’s statutory warranties
by the defendants. (I allowed this evidence provisionally having regard to the third-
party builder’s assertion that the written contract did not represent the entire agreement
between it and the defendants and explain the basis for this approach below.) Mr
Shahbaz observed that there were “some condition” [sic] on the Written Contract, such
as that the Ghiasvand family would be “doing as much as they want to build the house
with my management, with my, you know, look after the jobs to build the house with
the cheapest option”.
121. Mr Shahbaz asserted that the reason for the Second Written Contract, with a higher
construction cost, was that the bank had refused to approve any construction loan
based on the First Written Contract – the bank was of the view that the house was too
big to be able to be built for $420,000. Mr Shahbaz denied that the Second Written
Contract had been at his insistence based on an increase in construction costs. He
asserted that his letter to this effect was, in substance, a device to satisfy the bank in
relation to the bona fides of the Second Written Contract. He referred to the fact that
the letter (dated 7 October 2021) was provided after the date of the Second Written
Contract (27 September 2021). Again, I provisionally allowed Mr Shahbaz’s evidence
on this issue given the third-party builder’s assertion that the Written Contracts did not
fully and/or accurately reflect the true contractual arrangement between it and the
defendants.
Invoice for $25,000 management fee
122. Mr Shahbaz conceded that on 16 June 2021 he issued an invoice on behalf of the
third-party builder to the defendants in the sum of $25,000 in respect of a “management
fee”. Mr Shahbaz conceded that he wanted to be paid this amount but asserted he
had never received it. Mr Shahbaz specifically denied, in cross-examination, having
received a cash payment of $25,000 from Mr Ghiasvand Jnr in late June 2021 at the
premises of VIP Cuts at the Belconnen Mall.
Observation of and interaction with the defendants on the Site
123. Mr Shahbaz stated that the defendants regularly attended the Taylor Site. He stated,
for example, that the Ghiasvands came to the site every day after 6pm and that Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr was “always” on the site dealing with tradies and suppliers. Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr regularly worked on the site – Mr Shahbaz said Mr Ghiasvand Jnr did
all the cladding, all the outside painting, did silicon waterproofing and worked on the
eaves. Mr Shahbaz also saw Mr Ghiasvand Snr working.
124. Various photographs and some short videos were admitted into evidence, through
Mr Shahbaz, which showed Mr Ghiasvand Snr making an effort to assist in the digging
of a trench, and Mr Ghiasvand Jnr, in labouring attire, engaged in activities such as
inspecting steel mesh, installing cladding, manoeuvring a jackhammer, driving a forklift
and talking to and apparently supervising the work of subcontractors.
125. Mr Shahbaz acknowledged that he had been asked to pay and had in fact paid some
tradespeople through Flexible Constructions. He explained that his responsibility was
to deal with trades for which a licence was required – e.g. frames and trusses - but that
he had had no responsibility for nor involvement in paying for items such as tiling,
gyprocking, and painting.
126. Mr Shahbaz stated that he observed that “99%” of the materials used for the
construction work at the property were sourced by the defendants from Iran and other
overseas countries. He made reference to Versace products and gold bathroom
amenities.
Interaction with the plaintiff contractor and evidence regarding completion of the concreting
works
127. Mr Shahbaz’s evidence was that he was first told about Mr Kehrig on 12 July 2021 by
Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Ghiasvand Snr, who said they had a family friend who would
be responsible for carrying out the concreting work. They said, “We will deal with Ben
later on”. Mr Shahbaz agreed that he spoke to Mr Kehrig by phone for the first time
ever on 12 July 2021. Mr Shahbaz denied in cross-examination that the purpose of
the phone call on 12 July 2021 was for him to subcontract the concreting work to the
plaintiff. Mr Shahbaz agreed that Mr Kehrig would not have had enough time to
organise a pouring of concrete by 19 July 2021 unless he was already aware of and
preparing for the job prior to 12 July 2021.
128. Mr Shahbaz denied having asked Mr Kehrig to pour concrete on any particular date
and denied having provided any instructions to the concreter. He said that
responsibility for the concrete job was with the plaintiff concreting company, not him.
129. Mr Shahbaz stated that he did not think he had directed the defendants to forward
plans to the plaintiff concreting company.
130. Mr Shahbaz noted that at 5.20pm on 11 October 2021 he received an email from the
certifier identifying “a small issue” in relation to formwork around the garden area
entrance and asking for 600x400 formwork to do some footings. He forwarded this
email onto the defendants but had not forwarded it to the plaintiff concreting company.
131. Mr Shahbaz was not asked any questions about the $10,000 transferred into the
account of the third-party builder by the defendant on 20 October 2021 with the
narration “slab stage”.
132. Mr Shahbaz asserted that the reason the plaintiff concreting company’s May 2022
invoice had been copied to him was that Mr Kehrig had by that stage told Mr Shahbaz
that he was having trouble being paid by the defendants. As a result, Mr Shahbaz
suggested (to Ms Nazemi) that he be copied into the email attaching the outstanding
invoice, so that he would then have a pretext for discussing it with the defendants.
133. Mr Shahbaz asserted that, notwithstanding his issuing both of an invoice (dated
10 November 2021) and later receipts (dated 24 and 31 January 2022) referring to
payment by the defendants of $85,500 for completion of the slab stage, the third-party
builder had never received any such payment. He claimed that the documents had
been issued solely to facilitate the obtaining of loan approval by the defendants. Mr
Shahbaz described these documents as “just a piece of paper”. Likewise,
notwithstanding the issue of both an invoice and a receipt in respect of the “deposit”
prima facie payable by the defendants under the Written Contracts, Mr Shahbaz stated
he had never received payment of a deposit from them.
134. It was not put to Mr Shahbaz at any point that he had made a cash payment of $55,000
to the plaintiff concreting company at the Taylor Site.
Cessation of work on site
135. Mr Shahbaz stated that he stopped working at the Taylor Site on 16 May 2022 following
an argument with Mr Ghiasvand Snr regarding waterproofing. Mr Shahbaz insisted
that this work had to be carried out by someone with appropriate qualifications but
later, via security camera, observed someone doing the work after hours. Mr Shahbaz
then had a heated telephone conversation with Mr Ghiasvand Snr who asked him not
to carry out any further work at the site. This instruction was later formally confirmed
by the defendants.
Conclusion regarding Mr Shahbaz’s evidence
136. For the most part, Mr Shahbaz appeared to me to be a credible witness. His evidence
to the effect that he initially became involved with the Ghiasvand family because of
sympathy for Mr Ghiasvand Snr struck me as genuine. Whilst Mr Shahbaz was at
times somewhat dismissive of propositions he did not agree with, and at times
descended into arguing his own case rather than simply answering questions, overall
Mr Shahbaz appeared to me to be doing his best to assist the court.
137. I am, however, conscious that there is (apparently) a broader and ongoing contractual
dispute between the third-party builder and the defendants. The defendants requested
that I not review any pleadings relating to this other dispute and accordingly I have not
done so. In any event, I have approached my evaluation of the evidence of Mr
Shahbaz with some caution. I note that, as discussed later in these reasons, there are
numerous instances where Mr Shahbaz’s version of events is corroborated by
documentary evidence, some emanating from the defendants themselves.
Mr Ghiasvand Jnr
138. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr is the son of the first defendant, Mrs Ghiasvand, and Mr Ghiasvand
Snr.
139. Mr Ghiasvand Jr conceded that he met Mr Kehrig in around 2020 at VIP Cuts, and that
his parents became friends with Mr Kehrig, but asserted that at no stage had he, nor,
to his knowledge, any member of his family, had any communications directly with Mr
Kehrig about concreting work to be undertaken at the Taylor Site. The implication was
that this topic was never even discussed at any social gathering where he and his
parents were present.
140. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr claimed that he was present at a meeting Mr Shareifi and both of
his parents in Manuka in April 2021, but that Mr Kehrig was not present. Mr Ghiasvand
Jnr denied that there was any discussion at the meeting of the Ghiasvands making a
separate contractual arrangement with Mr Kehrig regarding concreting work.
141. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr did admit having texted a copy of architectural plans for the
proposed residence at the Taylor Site to Mr Kehrig prior to the meeting with Mr Shareifi
(on 12 April 2021). He claimed he had done so at the direction of Mr Shareifi.
(Mr Shareifi was not called to corroborate this claim, nor was he called by either party
to establish who was and was not at the meeting in April 2021 or what was said at that
meeting.)
142. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr claimed not to have known that Mr Kehrig was to be involved at the
Taylor Site, once Mr Shareifi became involved, until he happened to see him at the Site on 19 July 2021. This was notwithstanding the uncontested evidence that Mr
Ghiasvand Snr, Mrs Ghiasvand and Mr Kehrig were regularly socialising between April
and July 2021 (sometimes along with other associates or employees of the plaintiff
concreting company). So far as Mr Ghiasvand Jnr is concerned, it was simple
coincidence that first Mr Shareifi (the director of the first building company the
Ghiasvands dealt with) and then Mr Shahbaz (the director of the third-party builder)
had sought to engage the same concreter for the Taylor Site, who also happened to
be a family friend.
143. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr admitted that he received the August 2021, November 2021 and
May 2022 invoices from the plaintiff concreting company by email and admitted that
he did not respond to them. He asserted that he had not responded to the August
2021 invoice because it had not come directly from Mr Shahbaz. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr at
one point asserted that he had discussed the August 2021 invoice with Mr Shahbaz,
and that Mr Shahbaz had referred to it as a “quote” rather than an invoice, however
this proposition was not put to Mr Shahbaz.
144. In relation to the November 2021 invoice, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr asserted that he did not
pay this because he thought it had “been already paid” to the third-party builder.
Mr Ghiasvand Jnr’s claim in this regard is inconsistent with the defendants’ pleading
that they paid the third-party builder for the completion of the slab stage between 24
and 31 January 2022.
145. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr claimed that he did not pay the May 2022 invoice, because, upon
forwarding it to the Ghiasvands’ loan broker, the broker responded “the money has
been paid to the builder. They can pursue him.” Such a response, if given in the terms
indicated (and I note that Ms Pham was not called to give evidence), would on the
evidence have been unsurprising. I return to this issue later in these reasons.
146. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr asserted that the defendants had obtained a construction loan for
the work at the Taylor Site at around the time the First Written Contract was entered
into.
147. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr did not seek to identify any specific payment or series of payments
in the defendants’ Payment Schedule as being referable to payment to the third-party
builder for the Concreting Work or for completion of the slab stage. He was not asked
any questions and did not volunteer any information about the $10,000 which he
transferred into the account of the third-party builder on 20 October 2021 with the
narration “slab stage”.
148. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr conceded that he received the certifier’s report, which necessitated
further concreting work, from the third-party builder in October 2021, and that within
half an hour the report had been forwarded multiple times to the plaintiff concreting
company. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr was unable to offer any explanation for this. Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr also conceded to having sent approved plans for the Taylor Site directly
to the plaintiff concreting company in September 2021 without copying in the third-
party builder. He claimed that he had been directed by Mr Shahbaz to do this. (As
previously noted, Mr Shahbaz could not recall having made such a request.)
149. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr did not dispute the authenticity of numerous communications
between him and Mr Kehrig, to the exclusion of the third-party builder, regarding the
paying substantial sums for expenses such as glazing costs, directly, and on top of
what they were paying the third-party builder.
Did the defendants actually pay the third-party builder for the Concreting Work?
291. The defendants plead in their third-party claim that they paid the third-party builder for
completion of the base/slab stage – in other words they paid the third-party builder for
the Concreting Work carried out by the plaintiff concreting company – between 24 and 30 January 2022. This pleading appears to be based on the receipts issued by Mr
Shahbaz on behalf of the third-party builder on 24 January 2022 and 30 January 2022
respectively purporting to acknowledge receipt of sums of $85,000 and $500 from the
defendants referable to the slab stage payment under the Second Written Contract
(see paragraph 66 above).
292. Obviously, a payment of the above kind, in compliance with the Second Written
Contract, if actually made, would potentially provide support for the defendants’
contention that the Second Written Contract was intended to represent and in fact
represented the entire arrangement between them and the third-party builder.
293. On the other hand, Mr Shahbaz asserts that he never received payment from the
defendants for the completion of the slab stage, that the Concreting Work on the Site
was not part of his responsibility, and that the receipts were just “a piece of paper”
which he issued, in response to a specific request from the defendants’ loan broker
(see paragraph 65 above), to facilitate the defendants’ obtaining of a construction loan.
294. A more detailed review of the Payment Schedule is warranted. As I have previously
noted, the defendants’ loan broker Ms Pham advised that the construction loan of
$308,950 from the ANZ Bank was advanced to the defendants on the basis that, prior
to the first advance from the bank (on 4 February 2022), the defendants would have
contributed a total of $261,050 from their own funds towards the construction costs
made up of the following stage payments:
Stage payment Amount description
Deposit $57,000 Base (slab) stage $85,500
Frames and $114,000 trusses
External cover (pt $4,550 payment only) TOTAL $261,050
295. The Payment Schedule tendered by the defendants, adjusted to remove the supposed
$25,000 cash payment (as counsel for the defendants conceded was appropriate),
suggests that immediately prior to the first loan instalment advanced by the ANZ on 4
February 2022, the defendants had paid out a sum of $260,415.25 towards construction costs (i.e. almost exactly the amount of $261,050 assumed by Ms Pham).
Importantly, however, the relevant funds had not all been paid to the third-party builder
in the manner required by the Progress Payment Schedule contained in the Second
Written Contract. Rather, as of 3 February 2022, only the sum of $194,084 had been
paid to the third-party builder, as follows:
Date Amount Running balance 15/6/21 $2,895 $2,895 16/6/21 $10,000 $12,895 5/7/21 $5,000 $17,895 19/7/21 $5,000 $22,895 27/7/21 $2,300 $25,195 29/7/21 $1,651 26,846 6/8/21 $74,800 $101,646 16/9/21 $120 $101,766 20/10/21 $10,000 $111,766 1/11/21 $15,818 $127,584 21/11/21 $15,000 $142,584 23/11/21 $10,000 $152,584 9/12/21 $21,000 $173,584 15/12/21 $10,000 $183,584 17/12/21 $10,000 $193,584 31/1/22 $500 $194,084
Total (as at 3/2/22) $194,084
296. Thus, as of 3 February 2022, compared to what Ms Pham (and presumably the ANZ
Bank) understood the defendants had paid to the third-party builder, there was a deficit
of some $66,966.
297. Further, although the defendants pleaded in their t that “On or about 24 January 2022
and 31 January 2022 [they] made full payment for the Base Stage to the third party”,
the defendants’ own Payment Schedule is squarely inconsistent with this claim.
Specifically, the Payment Schedule shows that the defendants made only one payment
to the third-party builder in January 2022, being a payment of $500 on 31 January
2022. This tends to support the conclusion that the defendants were relying not on
what actually happened as the basis for this pleading, but on the issue by the third-
party builder of receipts purporting to acknowledge payments on those dates.
298. The defendants at no stage in their oral evidence sought to identify any particular
payment or combination of payments from the Payment Schedule which they said
represented payment to the third-party builder for completion of the base/slab stage.
This is a remarkable and, in my assessment, telling omission given the centrality of the
supposed payment both to the case of the plaintiff concreting company against them
and their own claim for contribution or indemnity from the third-party builder. The only
payment which on its face appears to have constituted some form of payment to the
third-party builder is the singular payment of $10,000 on 20 October 2021
accompanied by the narration “slab stage”, but as I have said none of the defendants
gave any oral evidence at all about this payment. Further, its timing is inconsistent with
the defendants’ pleading that they paid the full sum of $85,500 due, according to the
Second Written Contract, for completion of the slab stage in January 2022.
299. On balance, notwithstanding the issue by the third-party builder of the receipts which
have been referred to, based on the material summarised in the preceding paragraphs,
as well as my assessment of the relative credibility of the witnesses relied on by each
party, and noting that the defendants bear the onus of proof on this issue, I cannot be
satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendants made payment of any
particular amount to the third-party builder in respect of the completion of the slab stage
at the Taylor Site, nor (referring to the same work in another way) for the Concreting
Work carried out by the plaintiff at the Site. As regards the individual payment of
$10,000 on 20 October 2021, in the absence of any oral evidence at all from the
defendants regarding this payment, and given its inconsistency with the defendants’
pleading as to when they supposedly paid for the completion of the slab stage, it is
simply not possible to reach any firm conclusions.
Why did Mr Ghiasvand Jnr not respond to the invoices sent to him by the plaintiff concreting
company?
300. As I have mentioned, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr admitted having received by email the August
2021, November 2021 and May 2022 invoices from the plaintiff concreting company
and further admitted not having responded to those invoices.
301. I have recounted Mr Ghiasvand Jnr’s evidence in relation to the invoices, and his
supposed explanations in each case for not responding to them, at paragraphs 143 to
145 above.
302. In my assessment, the explanations of Mr Ghiasvand Jnr are unconvincing. Had Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr been of the understanding, as he maintains, that the invoices simply
had nothing to do with him, rather than stony silence it is more likely that, at least on the second of third occasion, he would have responded by requesting Mr Kehrig to
forward his invoices to the third-party builder for attention, or perhaps even forwarded
the invoices himself with some sort of query as to whether these had already been
paid, and if not could the third-party builder please do so. That is even more likely, in
my view, in circumstances where on the indisputable evidence Mr Kehrig was (at the
time at least) a friend of Mr Ghiasvand Jnr’s parents. Mr Ghiasvand Jnr did not do any
of these things.
303. As I have indicated, Mr Ghiasvand Jnr maintains that he forwarded the May 2022
invoice on to the defendants’ loan broker, Ms Pham, and then followed her advice to
allow Mr Kehrig to pursue Mr Shahbaz because “the money has been paid to the
builder” (without apparently raising it with either Mr Kehrig or Mr Shahbaz). No
explanation at all was offered as to why Mr Ghiasvand Jnr would have first sought and
then followed advice from his loan broker on this issue. In my assessment, Mr
Ghiasvand Jnr’s original action of forwarding the invoice to his loan broker in the first
place, and then the action of following her advice not to pay Mr Kehrig because “the
money has already been paid to the builder”, were opportunistic since, as I have found,
Mr Ghiasvand Jnr at the time would have been well aware of the separate arrangement
with the plaintiff concreting company and that, notwithstanding the receipts issued by
Mr Shahbaz, no payment had been made to the third-party builder in respect of the
Concreting Work carried out by the plaintiff. The response from Ms Pham provided
the defendants with a convenient pretext, if they needed one, for reneging on their
agreement with the plaintiff concreting company.
Conclusion regarding significance and effect of written contracts entered into between
defendants and third-party builder
304. Although it may not have been necessary to do so in connection with the determination
of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants, for the reasons outlined above I am not
satisfied that the execution by the defendants and the third-party builder of the First
and Second Written Contracts is a circumstantial factor which points away from the
existence of the oral contract asserted by the plaintiff concreting company. In my
assessment, it is clear from the conduct of the defendants and third-party builder,
analysed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable person, that the written
contracts were not intended to represent the entire contractual relationship between
them. More particularly, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was
explicitly discussed between the parties, and can be inferred from their conduct, that
notwithstanding the terms of the written contracts, it was agreed between the
defendants and the third-party builder the defendants would engage and pay “outside of the contract” for some contractors (including a concreter) themselves and would
also undertake some of the less specialised construction work themselves, as a cost-
saving measure.
305. To the extent that it is necessary to do so, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities
that the two written contracts between the defendants and the third-party builder –
which prima facie imposed an obligation to carry out all of the construction work related
to the proposed residence for the price specified in the contracts – were in each case
varied by express oral agreement and/or by contract implied from conduct of the
defendants and the third-party builder to impose different obligations on each other,
including (most relevantly) that the defendants would independently arrange and pay
for some contractors, including a concreter, “outside of the contract”.
Conclusion regarding whether oral contract remained in force
306. It follows from the analysis in the preceding paragraphs that I am satisfied on the
balance of probabilities that the oral contract which I have found was entered into
between the plaintiff concreting company and the defendants in March or April 2021
remained in force after the third-party builder took over responsibility for the
construction work to be undertaken at the Taylor Site.
CONCLUSION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S CASE AGAINST DEFENDANTS
307. For the reasons I have indicated, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that in
about March or April 2021, the plaintiff entered an oral contract with the defendants to
provide concreting services associated with the construction of a new residence at the
Taylor Site for reward. I am satisfied that it was agreed that the rough cost of the
proposed work would be “about 60 grand” and that the defendants would be able to
pay the plaintiff “later”, perhaps after they had managed to obtain a construction loan
for the proposed residence.
308. I am further satisfied that the abovementioned oral contract continued to be in force
once the third-party builder took over responsibility for the construction work to be
carried out at the Taylor Site. The defendants’ engagement with “their own
contractors”, along with other factors (including that Mr Ghiasvand Jr himself would
carry out some of the work on site), formed part of the basis on which the price
specified in the Written Contracts was negotiated. In other words, in my assessment,
both the defendants and the third-party builder contemplated and understood that the
defendants would separately incur additional costs beyond the total contract specified
in the written contracts.
309. I am satisfied that the existence of the abovementioned oral contract was neither
negated by nor inconsistent with the two written contracts executed by the defendants
and the third-party builder. I am satisfied, as asserted by Mr Shahbaz, that the
execution of those contracts was, at least, in part a charade to facilitate the obtaining
by the defendants of a construction loan and of builder’s warranty insurance.
310. Harking back to Fox v Percy, I am satisfied that the abovementioned findings represent
those which are most consistent with contemporary materials, objectively established
facts and the apparent logic of events. I am further satisfied that these findings most
appropriately take into account the “fallibility of human memory” in the sense described
in Watson v Foxman.
311. It follows that I am satisfied that, by failing to make any payment to the plaintiff
concreting company, the defendants breached their oral contract with the plaintiff
concreting company.
What is the quantum of the defendants’ liability to the plaintiff concreting company
under the oral contract?
312. I have set out my finding, above, that it was a term of the oral contract entered into
between the defendants and the plaintiff concreting company that the cost of the
proposed work would be “about 60 grand”. This coincides approximately with the
amount payable for completion of the base/slab stage under the First Written Contract,
being $63,000.
313. The amount sought in the August 2021 Invoices sent by the plaintiff concreting
company to the defendants was a total of $61,444.35, comprising:
1. $60,500 referable to 430m2 of “Slab Concrete including Material and Steel”;
and
2. $944.35 referable to “CONCRETE PUMPING (36m boom pump hire 20/7/21)”
and “Liaising and arrangement”).
314. As I have noted, however, the amounts sought in the November 2021 and May 2022
Invoices were larger. The November 2021 Invoice sought a total of $73,000,
comprising the $60,500 referred to in the first of the August 2021 Invoices, plus a
further sum of $12,500 payable in respect of “60 m^3 Extra Concrete” (the additional
sum of $944.35 set out in the second of the August 2021 Invoices was not reproduced).
315. As I have previously noted, the May 2022 Invoice contained a number of additional
entries compared to the November 2011 Invoice:
1. the total invoice amount was increased from $73,000 to $78,988.79;
2. there were the following additional expense items:
i. “7.5 m^3 Concrete for 50 Piers+ cutting wall and jackhammering two
days two boys” - $2,500;
ii. “Two stairs (2500$ each)” - $5,000;
iii. “Concrete Pump” - $944.35; and
3. there was acknowledgement of a “receipt” of a part-payment of $4,000 (May
2022 Invoice).
316. As I have also previously noted:
1. the “Concrete Pump” item in the May 2022 Invoice seems to be a reference
back to the second of the August 2021 Invoices; and
2. it is possible that at least some of the other new expense items contained in
the May 2022 Invoice are referable to rectification work required to be carried
out at the Taylor Site as a result of defects identified in the certifier’s report of
October 2021, but no clear evidence was given about these matters by any
party and, likewise, no party gave evidence relating to a part-payment of $4,000
supposedly made by the defendants to the plaintiff concreting company (the
defendants of course deny any liability to the plaintiff at all).
317. Given that, on 11 October 2021, the defendants urgently and directly forwarded to Mr
Kehrig a copy of the certifier’s report identifying the need for further or rectification
concreting work to be carried out at the Taylor Site, I am satisfied that the only
reasonable inference is that the defendants intended that the existing oral contract with
the plaintiff concreting company be varied to include an agreement that the plaintiff
would be paid for the cost of carrying out the additional work detailed in the November
2021 Invoice, namely what appears to have been the pouring of an additional 60m3 of
concrete.
318. Given the absence of evidence explaining the additional items contained in the May
2022 Invoice, however, I cannot be certain as to what those items (including the $4,000
credit to the defendants) relate to nor whether the defendants at any point agreed to
pay those additional costs.
319. In the circumstances, I will enter judgement for the plaintiff against the defendants in
the sum of $73,944.35 plus interest. That sum represents the amount specified in the November 2021 Invoice plus the $944.35 specified in the second of the May 2021
Invoices.
| Interest | |
| 320. | The plaintiff claims interest from 18 November 2021 (the date the November 2021 |
| Invoice was emailed to Mr Ghiasvand Jnr) up to the date of judgment. | |
| 321. | Given my finding that the term of the oral contract between the plaintiff and the |
| defendants as to payment was simply that the defendants could pay “later”, and given | |
| that the defendants, as of 18 November 2021, had not yet received any loan funds | |
| from the ANZ Bank, I am not prepared to proceed on the basis that interest should run | |
| from that date. | |
| 322. | Instead, I will order that the defendants pay pre-judgment interest to the plaintiff on the |
| sum of $73,944.35 from 28 days after the May 2022 Invoice was emailed to the | |
| defendants (for the first time, being 13 May 2022), namely, from 11 June 2022 up to | |
| yesterday, 9 October 2024. | |
| 323. | Pursuant to rule 1619 and Part 2.1 of Schedule 2 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 |
| (ACT) I calculate the amount of interest payable as $12,370.98. |
CONSIDERATION OF THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION OR
INDEMNITY AGAINST THE THIRD PARTY
324. In his opening comments, counsel for the defendants stated the defendants’ claim for
contribution or indemnity against the third-party builder was based on s 21 of the Civil
Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) (Wrongs Act).
325. Part 2.5 of the Wrongs Act, of which s 21 forms part, does not create an open-ended
statutory entitlement for a party to seek contribution. It only applies where a person
(the first person) is liable for damage caused by a “wrong” and someone else (a
contributory) is also liable for the same damage. “Wrong” is defined in s 19 as “an act
or omission (whether or not an offence):
1. that gives rise to a liability in tort in relation to which a defence of contributory
negligence is available at common law; or
2. that amounts to a breach of contractual duty of care that is concurrent and
coextensive with a duty of care in tort”.
326. The breach of an oral contract engaged in by the defendants in the present case does
not constitute a “wrong” within the meaning of Part 2.5 of the Wrongs Act. It does not
give rise to any liability or tort, nor does it amount to a breach of contractual duty of care that is concurrent and coextensive with a duty of care in tort. Accordingly, to the
extent that the defendants’ claim for contribution or indemnity is based on s 21 of the
Wrongs Act, it is misconceived and must fail.
327. I interpolate that, even if Part 2.5 did apply, the result would not be significantly
different. Given my finding that the defendants have not established that they paid any
particular amount to the third-party builder for the Concreting Work, it follows that I
would not be satisfied that it is “just and equitable” for the third-party builder to
contribute to or indemnify the defendants against their liability to the plaintiff for breach
of the oral contract (alternatively, the maximum amount of that contribution would be
$10,000)
328. Neither the First nor Second Written Contract contained any indemnity provision.
Accordingly, no question of any contractual indemnity arises or was alleged.
329. The defendants’ claim against the third-party builder was articulated in two slightly
different ways in the defendants’ pleadings. Although no oral argument was addressed
by either party to these aspects, for completeness I deal with them in the following
paragraphs.
330. First, the defendants pleaded that “if the plaintiff has completed the concreting works
at the request of the defendants (which is denied), then the third party has breached
either the First [Written] Contract, or Second [Written] Contract, or both” by failing to
carry out the base/slab stage works and, despite that, issuing an invoice to the
defendants in respect of that work. The defendants then plead that they have suffered
loss and damage by reason of the above breach, in that, responsive to the invoice
issued by the third-party builder, they paid $85,500 to the third-party builder.
331. The above cause of action is untenable given the following findings I have made:
1. neither the First Written Contract nor the Second Written Contract represented
or was intended by either party to represent the full contractual agreement
between the defendants and the third-party builder (to the extent necessary, I
further find that the Written Contracts executed by the parties were in each
case varied by express oral agreement and/or by contract implied from conduct
of the defendants and the third-party builder to impose different obligations on
each other, including (most relevantly) that the defendants would independently
arrange and pay for the Concreting Work “outside of the contract”);
2. the existence of a separate contractual arrangements between the defendants
and some contractors was a matter known to and agreed by the third-party builder and, along with other factors (including that Mr Ghiasvand Jr himself
would carry out some of the work on site), formed part of the basis on which
the price specified in the Written Contracts was negotiated; and
3. in any event, the defendants have not established that they made payment of
any particular amount to the third-party builder for completion of the base/slab
stage nor (referring to the same work in different terms) for the Concreting
Work.
332. It follows that I reject the defendants’ allegations of both breach and loss. To the extent
that the defendants’ claim against the third-party builder is based on these allegations,
it likewise must fail.
333. Finally, the defendants claimed in the alternative that the third-party builder has a “duty
to account to the plaintiff” (it may be this was intended to read “to the defendants”) in
respect of the loss claimed by the plaintiff. This proposition was premised on the
assumptions, first, that “the plaintiff was introduced to the defendants and engaged by
the defendants through the third party as their agent”, and secondly, that, the
defendants had paid $85,500 to the third-party builder in respect of the Concreting
Work.
334. This pleading is difficult to understand. To the extent, however, that it is asserted that
the plaintiff was introduced to the defendants by the third-party builder and that the
third-party builder (rather than the defendants) engaged the plaintiff concreting
company, it is wholly inconsistent with the factual findings I have made. Further, I have
found that the defendants never made payment to the third-party builder of the sum of
$85,500 for the Concreting Work. This basis for the defendants’ claim against the third-
party builder is therefore also untenable.
335. I will therefore dismiss the defendants’ claim against the third-party builder.
| Orders | |
| 336. | The orders of the Court are: |
1. Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in
the sum of $73,944.35.
2. Pursuant to rule 1619, the first and second defendants are to pay the plaintiff
pre-judgment interest in the sum of $12,370.98.
3. The defendants claim against the third party is dismissed.
4. Subject to order 5, the defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s and the third party’s
costs of the proceedings, other than the costs associated with the vacation of
the hearing on 2 April 2024.
5. Order 4 is vacated, and the costs referred to in order 4 shall be reserved in the
event that any party notifies the Court in writing before 4.00pm on 18 October
2024 that it seeks a costs order different from that made in order 4.
6. Pursuant to rule 1622, I make the usual order as to post-judgment interest.
I certify that the preceding [336] numbered
paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for
Decision of his Honour Special Magistrate Hassall.
Associate: C Ammett
Date: 14 October 2024
Narration (FC
payments FC Cum.
| Date | Payee | only) | Amount | Cum. Total | Total |
| $ | |||||
| 23/06/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 25,000.00 | not made | not made | |
| - | $ | $ | $ | ||
| 15/06/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 2,895.00 | 2,895.00 | 2,895.00 | |
| “building | $ | $ | $ | ||
| 16/06/2021 | Flexible Constructions | construction” | 10,000.00 | 12,895.00 | 12,895.00 |
| $ | $ |
| 18/06/2021 Scott D McNiven | 550.00 | 13,445.00 |
| $ | $ | |
| 21/06/2021 All Glass Wagga | 17,700.00 | 31,145.00 |
| $ | $ |
| 22/06/2021 | BCA Certifier | 4,224.00 | 35,369.00 |
| $ | $ | ||
| 05/07/2021 | Pierre Dragh | 440.00 | 35,809.00 |
“construction” $ $ $
| 05/07/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 5,000.00 | 40,809.00 | 17,895.00 |
“Ali” $ $ $
| 19/07/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 5,000.00 | 45,809.00 | 22,895.00 |
| $ | $ | |||
| 24/07/2021 | Ready Industries | 773.41 | 46,582.41 | |
| $ | $ |
| 27/07/2021 Maroneys | 3,300.00 | 49,882.41 |
“Insurance” $ $ $
| 27/07/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 2,300.00 | 52,182.41 | 25,195.00 |
“Ali” $ $ $
| 29/07/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 1,651.00 | 53,833.41 | 26,846.00 |
| $ | $ |
| 04/08/2021 Expand | 9,020.00 | 62,853.41 |
- $ $ $
| 06/08/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 74,800.00 | 137,653.41 | 101,646.00 |
Narration (FC
payments FC Cum.
| Date | Payee | only) | Amount | Cum. Total | Total |
| $ | $ | ||||
| 25/08/2021 | Ready Industries | 325.07 | 137,978.48 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 02/09/2021 | Ready Industries | 277.20 | 138,255.68 | ||
| $ | $ |
| 11/09/2021 All Glass Wagga | 17,700.00 | 155,955.68 |
| $ | $ | |
| 11/09/2021 Maroneys | 550.00 | 156,505.68 |
| $ | $ | |
| 11/09/2021 Scott D McNiven | 2,640.00 | 159,145.68 |
“Toilet hire” $ $ $
| 16/09/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 120.00 | 159,265.68 | 101,766.00 |
| $ | $ |
| 23/09/2021 Bunnings | 488.46 | 159,754.14 |
| $ | $ |
| 25/09/2021 | Ready Industries | 326.07 | 160,080.21 |
| $ | $ | ||
| 02/10/2021 | Ready Industries | 281.20 | 160,361.41 |
| $ | $ | ||
| 03/10/2021 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 160,493.41 |
| $ | $ |
| 05/10/2021 Bunnings | 259.46 | 160,752.87 |
“Slab stage” $ $ $
| 20/10/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 10,000.00 | 170,752.87 | 111,766.00 |
| $ | $ | |||
| 25/10/2021 | Ready Industries | 327.07 | 171,079.94 | |
| $ | $ |
| 25/10/2021 Bunnings | 90.66 | 171,170.60 |
Integrated Pest $ $
| 27/10/2021 | Management | 1,230.24 | 172,400.84 |
“9417tylor” $ $ $
| 01/11/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 15,818.00 | 188,218.84 | 127,584.00 |
Narration (FC
payments FC Cum.
| Date | Payee | only) | Amount | Cum. Total | Total |
| $ | $ | ||||
| 03/11/2021 | Ready Industries | 282.20 | 188,501.04 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 03/11/2021 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 188,633.04 | ||
| $ | $ |
| 08/11/2021 Bunnings | 115.51 | 188,748.55 |
-- $ $ $
| 21/11/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 15,000.00 | 203,748.55 | 142,584.00 |
“17 94 tylor” $ $ $
| 23/11/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 10,000.00 | 213,748.55 | 152,584.00 |
| $ | $ | |||
| 25/11/2021 | Ready Industries | 328.07 | 214,076.62 | |
| $ | $ | |||
| 02/12/2021 | Ready Industries | 238.20 | 214,314.82 | |
| $ | $ | |||
| 03/12/2021 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 214,446.82 | |
| $ | $ | |||
| 03/12/2021 | Ready Industries | 277.20 | 214,724.02 |
“Carpenters $ $ $
| 09/12/2021 | Flexible Constructions | bill” | 21,000.00 | 235,724.02 | 173,584.00 |
| “Carpenter” | $ | $ | $ | ||
| 15/12/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 10,000.00 | 245,724.02 | 183,584.00 | |
| $ | $ |
| 15/12/2021 Bunnings | 108.22 | 245,832.24 | |
| $ |
|
| 17/12/2021 | Flexible Constructions | 10,000.00 | 255,832.24 | 193,584.00 |
| $ | $ | |||
| 25/12/2021 | Ready Industries | 329.07 | 256,161.31 | |
| $ | $ | |||
| 02/01/2022 | Ready Industries | 277.20 | 256,438.51 | |
| $ | $ | |||
| 03/01/2021 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 256,570.51 |
Narration (FC
payments FC Cum.
| Date | Payee | only) | Amount | Cum. Total | Total |
| $ | $ | ||||
| 17/01/2022 | Andre Herzog | 1,194.00 | 257,764.51 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 22/01/2022 | Ready Industries | 277.20 | 258,041.71 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 22/01/2022 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 258,173.71 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 22/01/2022 | Ready Industries | 277.20 | 258,450.91 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 22/01/2022 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 258,582.91 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 24/01/2022 | Canberra Sand & Gravel | 262.00 | 258,844.91 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 24/01/2022 | Ready Industries | 323.07 | 259,167.98 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 25/01/2022 | Ready Industries | 330.07 | 259,498.05 | ||
| $ | $ | $ | |||
| 31/01/2022 | Flexible Constructions | 500.00 | 259,998.05 | 194,084.00 | |
| $ | $ | ||||
| 02/02/2022 | Ready Industries | 285.20 | 260,283.25 | ||
| $ | $ | ||||
| 03/02/2022 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 260,415.25 | ||
| - | $ | $ | $ | ||
| 04/02/2022 | Flexible Constructions | 109,450.00 | 369,865.25 | 303,534.00 | |
| $ | $ | ||||
| 09/02/2022 | Ready Industries | 277.20 | 370,142.45 | ||
| $ | $ |
| 10/02/2022 Bunnings | 58.35 | 370,200.80 |
| $ | $ |
| 11/02/2022 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 370,332.80 |
| $ | $ |
| 16/02/2022 Amjid | 10,000.00 | 380,332.80 |
Narration (FC
payments FC Cum.
| Date | Payee | only) | Amount | Cum. Total | Total |
| $ | $ |
| 23/02/2022 Hudsons Trade Centre | 7,361.00 | 387,693.80 |
| $ | $ |
| 26/02/2022 | Ready Industries | 331.07 | 388,024.87 |
| $ | $ |
| 01/03/2022 Bunnings | 75.60 | 388,100.47 |
| $ | $ | |
| 01/03/2022 Bunnings | 399.00 | 388,499.47 |
| $ | $ |
| 02/03/2022 | Ready Industries | 284.20 | 388,783.67 |
| $ | $ |
| 02/03/2022 Bunnings | 413.25 | 389,196.92 |
| $ | $ |
| 03/03/2022 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 389,328.92 |
| $ | $ | ||
| 09/03/2022 | Ready Industries | 277.20 | 389,606.12 |
| $ | $ | ||
| 09/03/2022 | CJ & JC Perman | 5,049.00 | 394,655.12 |
| $ | $ | ||
| 09/03/2022 | Ready Industries | 132.00 | 394,787.12 |
| Hydro Tech Plumbing and | $ | $ | |
| 11/03/2022 | Design | 5,000.00 | 399,787.12 |
| $ | $ |
| 14/03/2022 Bunnings | 266.71 | 400,053.83 |
| $ | $ |
| 15/03/2022 | Ready Industries | 323.07 | 400,376.90 |
| $ | $ |
| 17/03/2022 Bunnings | 241.44 | 400,618.34 |
| $ | $ | |
| 17/03/2022 Amjid | 5,000.00 | 405,618.34 |
| $ | $ |
| 22/03/2022 | Ready Industries | 278.20 | 405,896.54 |
Narration (FC
payments FC Cum.
| Date | Payee | only) | Amount | Cum. Total | Total |
| “insulation” | $ | $ | $ | ||
| 22/03/2022 | Flexible Constructions | 3,000.00 | 408,896.54 | 306,534.00 | |
| $ | $ |
| 22/03/2022 Bunnings | 86.03 | 408,982.57 |
| $ | $ | |
| 25/03/2022 Electrician | 5,000.00 | 413,982.57 |
| $ | $ |
| 30/03/2022 | CJ & JC Perman | 4,939.00 | 418,921.57 |
- $ $ $
| 31/03/2022 | Flexible Constructions | 114,000.00 | 532,921.57 | 420,534.00 |
| $ | $ |
| 03/04/2022 Bunnings | 155.95 | 533,077.52 |
| $ | $ |
| 13/04/2022 | Arctic Walls | 5,000.00 | 538,077.52 |
| $ | $ | ||
| 22/04/2022 | Ready Industries | 280.20 | 538,357.72 |
| $ | $ | ||
| 26/04/2022 | Ready Industries | 277.20 | 538,634.92 |
| $ | $ | ||
| 26/04/2022 | Ready Industries | 323.07 | 538,957.99 |
| $ | (duplication | ||
| 11/05/2022 | Flexible Constructions | 3,000.00 | of 22/3/22) |
| |||
| Total: |
|
2
0
1