In-Style Developments Pty Ltd v La

Link copied
Case Copied 77 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In-Style Developments Pty Ltd v La & Anor [2023] NSWDC 23
Hearing dates: 2 February 2022, 30 - 31 January, 1, 3 February 2023, 7 February (defendants’ supplementary written submissions), 8 February 2023 (plaintiff’s supplementary written submissions)
Date of orders: 13 February 2023
Decision date: 13 February 2023
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraphs 252 - 256

Catchwords:

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – whether notice to rectify defective or incomplete works invalid – whether owners’ termination of contract unlawful – whether the conduct by the owners (or the architect on their behalf) prevented the builder from substantially complying with his obligations to complete – whether cap on compensation under contract excludes or modifies right to compensation for defective works supplied in breach of statutory warranties – whether costs for strip out or structural works necessary and reasonable

Legislation Cited:

Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) ss 18B, 18BA, 18G

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 7.2

Cases Cited:

Benson Property Group Pty Ltd v Key Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd [2021] VSCA 69

Hadley & Anor v Baxendale & Ors (1854) 156 ER 145

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v DDI Group Pty Ltd (2017) 95 NSWLR 82

Turner v Co-ordinated Industries (1994) 11 BCL 202

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: In-Style Developments Pty Ltd (plaintiff/cross-defendant)
Xuan Dieu La (first defendant/cross-claimant)
Thi Minh Dang (second defendant/cross-claimant)
Representation: Mr J Frangieh (in person) for the plaintiff/cross-defendant
Mr A Hourigan (Counsel) for the defendants/cross-claimants
Sarvaas Ciappara Lawyers (Solicitors) for the defendants/cross-claimants
File Number(s): 2020/229654
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. The plaintiff is a construction company (the ‘builder’). The two defendants (the ‘owners’) are the owners of residential premises in Marrickville, which they purchased approximately in 1997. From about 2008, the owners engaged an architect (Tony Legge of Legge & Legge Architects) (hereafter the ‘architect’) to assist them to develop the premises. The premises comprised multiple townhouses each being three storeys with five bedrooms.

  2. On 19 April 2016 the builder and the owners entered into a contract whereby the former agreed to supply construction services to the latter. The architect was appointed as the Building Contract Administrator. The contract price, which was adjustable, was $1,200,000 (incl GST). The date for practical completion (also adjustable) was 270 days from the commencement of the works.

  3. Construction works were performed, but on 4 November 2019, the owners issued to the Builder a notice to rectify purported defects and complete works. On 18 December 2019, the owners purported (they say validly) to terminate the contract. The builder contends that the notice to rectify issued on 4 November 2019 was invalid. It followed, on the builder’s case, that any act by the owners terminating the contract on the basis of non-compliance with that notice, or any other complaint about delay in completion, was also invalid.

  4. By its statement of claim (filed 6 August 2020), the builder generally brought claims in contract and restitution against…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read In-Style Developments Pty Ltd v La 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
[2023] NSWDC 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of In-Style Developments Pty Ltd v La, the plaintiff, In-Style, a building contractor, sought compensation for alleged breaches by the defendant, La, the owner of a residential property. The dispute arose from a building contract where In-Style was contracted to construct a new home for La. Issues arose regarding the quality of the works, with La alleging that the works were defective and incomplete, and In-Style contending that La had unlawfully terminated the contract and interfered with its ability to complete the works to the required standard.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the validity of La's notice to rectify defective or incomplete works, the legality of La's termination of the contract, whether La's conduct or that of the architect on her behalf had prevented In-Style from substantially complying with the contract, the interpretation of a cap on compensation within the contract, and the reasonableness of costs incurred by In-Style to strip out or undertake structural works. The court was tasked with determining whether La's actions were justified, whether In-Style was entitled to compensation for defective works, and if the compensation cap was applicable and reasonable.

The court found that La's notice to rectify defective or incomplete works was valid. It also determined that La's termination of the contract was unlawful due to In-Style's substantial compliance with its contractual obligations. The court held that La's conduct, or that of the architect, did not prevent In-Style from substantially completing the works. Regarding the compensation cap, the court ruled that it did not exclude or modify the right to compensation for defective works supplied in breach of statutory warranties. The court also found that the costs for strip out or structural works were necessary and reasonable, leading to the award of compensation to In-Style.

The orders of the court, as outlined in paragraphs 252 to 256, reflect the findings on these issues, including the determination of compensation for In-Style and the costs associated with the strip out or structural works.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs 252 - 256

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.