District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Elrob Construction Group Pty Ltd v Haddad [2025] NSWDC 380 Hearing dates: 11 – 14 November 2024, 28 February 2025 Date of orders: 24 September 2025 Decision date: 24 September 2025 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Cole DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
(2) Judgment for the defendant on the first cross-claim.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant the total sum of $226,446.39 for breach of the contracts.
(4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant the total sum of $25,000 by way of liquidated damages under the contracts.
(5) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant the sum of $95,134.52 by way of restitution.
Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Contract — Damages – claim by builder for cost of variations – alternative claim in quantum meruit
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) — cross-claim by owner for damages for alleged defects and incomplete works – claim for restitution of money paid under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
Legislation Cited: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
Home Building Act 1989
Cases Cited: Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613; [1954] HCA 36
John Holland Pty Ltd v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW (‘John Holland’) [2007] NSWCA 140
Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (In Liq) (2008) 232 CLR 635
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Elrob Construction Group Pty Ltd (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Sami Haddad (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G Campbell (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Madison Marcus (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
File Number(s): 2021/00277709 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
In 2017, the plaintiff, Elrob Construction Group Pty Ltd (“Elrob”), entered into two contracts with the defendant, Mr Sami Haddad, to build two double storey brick houses (“55” and “55A”, collectively, “the houses”) on a parcel of land owned by Mr Haddad in San Souci, New South Wales (“the land”). The land was to be subdivided so that each house would have its own allotment.
-
Building work was undertaken, and, in the course of the building work, numerous variations were made to the contracts.
-
In August 2020, Mr Haddad made a complaint to NSW Fair Trading about allegedly defective and incomplete work in the houses.
-
On 18 September 2020, the building certifier issued a list of works to be completed as a pre-condition to the issuing of an occupation certificate to Mr Haddad.
-
On 12 November 2020, Elrob issued payment claims 1111a and 1111b to Mr Haddad, claiming payment, for the first time, for three variations in relation to each house (six variations in total). Claim 1111a related to 55A and claim 1111b related to 55.
-
On 13 November 2020, Elrob filed proceedings in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales (NCAT), seeking an order for payments from Mr Haddad allegedly due under the contract with respect to 55A (“the contract”).
-
On 5 December 2020, Elrob made an…
Continue reading Elrob Construction Group Pty Ltd v Haddad
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Elrob Construction Group Pty Ltd v Haddad [2025] NSWDC 380
- Case
- [2025] NSWDC 380
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court's judgment was that the plaintiff's claim for variations and in quantum meruit was dismissed, and the defendant was awarded the sum of $226,446.39 for breach of the contracts, $25,000 in liquidated damages, and $95,134.52 in restitution. This comprehensive judgment resolved the financial disputes between the parties, providing clarity on the respective rights and obligations under the contracts and the statutory scheme.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
(2) Judgment for the defendant on the first cross-claim.
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant the total sum of $226,446.39 for breach of the contracts.
(4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant the total sum of $25,000 by way of liquidated damages under the contracts.
(5) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant the sum of $95,134.52 by way of restitution.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.