Eddy Lau Constructions Pty Limited v Transdevelopment Enterprise Pty Limited

Eddy Lau Constructions Pty Limited, the plaintiff, brought an action against Transdevelopment Enterprise Pty Limited, the defendant, seeking payment of monies alleged to be outstanding under a contract as well as damages for breach and repudiation of contract. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of sections 92 and 94 of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) and whether these sections precluded the plaintiff from obtaining relief. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the contract between the parties was a contract "to do residential building work" as defined in the Act. This involved examining whether the contingency of the site being made available to the plaintiff was a condition precedent to the contract becoming a binding agreement to do building work. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff had fulfilled its obligation to obtain a contract of insurance, and whether this was a condition subsequent that could affect the enforceability of the contract. The construction of the statutory definitions and the implications of these conditions on the enforceability of the contract were central to the legal issues at hand.

The court found that the contract was indeed a contract "to do residential building work" and that the contingency regarding the availability of the site was not a condition precedent but rather a condition subsequent. This meant that the contract was valid and binding unless and until the condition regarding the site's availability was not met. The court also determined that the plaintiff had not obtained a contract of insurance, which was a condition subsequent. However, the court concluded that these conditions did not preclude the plaintiff from seeking relief under the contract. The court held that the statutory provisions did not preclude the plaintiff from recovering the outstanding monies and damages for breach of contract.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the outstanding amount under the contract and awarded damages for the breach of contract. The court also determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs associated with the litigation.