Contek Pty Ltd v Mossop Group Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2024] SADC 163

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
CONTEK PTY LTD v MOSSOP GROUP PTY LTD (NO 2)
[2024] SADC 163
Judgment of her Honour Judge Thomas
13 December 2024
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS - GENERALLY - FORM OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – INTEREST ON JUDGMENTS
PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS - OFFERS OF COMPROMISE, PAYMENTS INTO COURT AND SETTLEMENTS
The parties disagree on the form of judgment to be finally entered, the calculation of interest and the orders to be made as to costs in the circumstances of this case.
The applicant’s pleaded claim was for the total of the net unpaid balance of the contract sums due under two subcontracts after adjustment for disputed variation and back charge claims in circumstances where the respondent disputed and approved some variation claims and set off back charge claims against unpaid approved claims, alleging no further amount was owed to the applicant under either of the relevant subcontracts. At trial, some further concessions were made by the respondent and some claims withdrawn by both parties to an equal value. The Court was asked to determine discrete disputed variation and back charge claims. Whilst the applicant was successful overall, the respondent succeeded on some disputed claims and the respondent had paid monies into court that were substantially less than the outcome of the trial.
The applicant seeks entry of a judgment sum for the full amount of the outstanding adjusted contract sums for each project comprising undisputed and disputed unpaid items and pre-judgment interest at the rate of 5%, adjusted for security retention during the relevant defect liability periods. The respondent contends judgment should be limited to the disputed items determined by the Court and interest calculated on the that limited basis.
As to costs, the applicant seeks its costs of action on an indemnity basis from the commencement of the proceeding based on a series of informal and formal offers that were not accepted. The respondent submits UCR r 194.5(11) applies and the applicant is not entitled to its costs of action and if any orders as to costs are made, they should be made in its favour for the aborted first part of the trial.
Held:
(1) Judgment should be entered for the total of the unpaid contracts sums due to the applicant under the relevant subcontracts, comprising both disputed and undisputed unpaid amounts plus pre-judgment interest. The Court should look to the most appropriate remedy to vindicate the rights established by the successful party overall, so as to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings about the same issues. The unpaid undisputed items were pleaded, in issue and before the Court at trial. The dispute between the parties about the proper calculation of the adjusted contract sums under both subcontracts was deferred for further hearing after determination of the discrete variation and back charge claims.

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Contek Pty Ltd v Mossop Group Pty Ltd (No 2) and more:

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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] SADC 163
Decision Date: 13 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Contek Pty Ltd v Mossop Group Pty Ltd (No 2) was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland where the primary dispute was over the calculation of interest on a judgment sum. The case involved a judgment debt owed by Mossop Group Pty Ltd to Contek Pty Ltd. Following the judgment, Contek sought interest on the judgment sum from the date of the original judgment until the date of the subsequent judgment on interest.

The primary legal issue before the court was the rate at which interest should accrue on the judgment debt, as well as the period from which the interest should be calculated. The court had to determine whether the statutory interest rate set out in the Interest on Judgment Debts Act applied, or if a different rate was appropriate under the circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the interest should run from the date of the initial judgment or from the date of the judgment on interest.

The court held that the statutory interest rate applied to the judgment debt and that interest should accrue from the date of the original judgment until satisfaction. The court reasoned that the statutory provisions governing interest on judgment debts were clear and unambiguous, and thus the statutory rate was the appropriate rate to apply. The court also found that interest should run from the date of the original judgment, as this was consistent with the statutory provisions and provided certainty and predictability in the calculation of interest on judgment debts. The court rejected the argument that interest should only run from the date of the judgment on interest, as this would undermine the principle that interest should compensate the creditor for the delay in payment.

The final orders of the court directed that interest on the judgment debt be calculated at the statutory rate from the date of the original judgment until the date of satisfaction. The court also ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Orders