Grech v Biltar Pty Ltd - [2025] VSC 636

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2025 03042

BETWEEN:

JULIAN GRECH	Plaintiff
v
BILTAR PTY LTD (ACN 619 785 143)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Efthim AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Grech v Biltar Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 636

---

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE – Building contract – Delay in completing the rectification work under the contract – Whether specific performance is an adequate remedy – Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Wolverhampton v Emmons [1901] 1 QB 515 applied – Whether the scope of work is clearly defined – Whether damages are a more adequate remedy.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Mitchell KC and Ms C Jones	Strongman & Crouch
For the Defendant	Mr R Andrew KC and Mr A Morrison	KCL Law

Contents

Legal principles

Is the work defined by the contract?

Damages and alternative remedy

Access to the premises

Conclusion

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Julian Grech, applies for orders that the defendant, Biltar Pty Ltd, specifically perform its obligations under a deed of settlement and release dated 21 May 2024 (‘the Deed’) to carry out and complete building rectification works to the satisfactory of an independent expert appointed under the Deed.
Background
The plaintiff is the owner of Lot 6, 8268 Murray Valley Highway, Bathumi, which is located on the Murray River, near the border of Victoria and New South Wales. He purchased the property with the intention of building a new dwelling that would eventually be the home where the plaintiff and his wife would retire.
On 13 April 2022, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant, for the construction of a double storey dwelling at the property for a price of $1,833,174.02. The completion date under the contract was 17 October 2023 (Clause 8.4) but by 17 October 2023, the works at the property had not been completed.
On 2 June 2023, the defendant terminated the employment of a carpenter, Cameron Boyle, because the defendant was struggling with ‘cash flow’ issues. One of the main reasons for defendant’s ‘cash flow’ issues at that time, was the plaintiff’s late payment of the April Claim and the resulting impact this had on the business.[1]
[1]Paragraph 26 of the affidavit of Benjamin Lindsay Carr, sworn 15 August 2025, which has not been contradicted by the plaintiff
On 9 June 2023, Benjamin Lindsay Carr, the defendant’s director, received a telephone call from Brendan Elliott, the defendant’s foreman. Mr Elliot advised Mr Carr that the plaintiff was at the land and verbally abused him. He also told Mr Carr that he was distressed, felt like breaking down and did not want to work at the land again.[2]
[2]Paragraph 23 of the affidavit of Benjamin Lindsay Carr, sworn 15 August 2025, which has not been contradicted by the plaintiff.
On 15 August 2023, Mr Carr had another conversation with Brendan Elliott. Mr…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Continue reading Grech v Biltar Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Grech v Biltar Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 636
Case: [2025] VSC 636
Decision Date: 8 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grech v Biltar Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Grech, and the defendant, Biltar Pty Ltd, concerning a building contract. The plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract for the rectification of defects in a residential building, alleging that the defendant had delayed completing the work. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around whether specific performance was an adequate remedy given the delay in completing the work and whether damages would be a more suitable remedy.

The court considered the established principle from Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Wolverhampton v Emmons that specific performance may not be appropriate if the scope of the work is not clearly defined or if there has been a delay that affects the adequacy of the remedy. In this case, the court scrutinised the contract to determine whether the scope of the rectification work was sufficiently defined. It also evaluated the extent of the delay and its impact on the adequacy of specific performance. The court concluded that the delay and the lack of precise definition of the rectification work made specific performance an inadequate remedy. The court found that damages would be a more appropriate remedy, given the circumstances.

In summary, the court held that specific performance was not an adequate remedy in this case due to the delay in completing the work and the unclear scope of the rectification work. The court determined that damages would be a more suitable remedy for the plaintiff's losses. The court ordered that the defendant pay damages to the plaintiff for the breach of contract.

Orders