Jeffcott v Da Vesi Construction Group Pty Ltd - [2024] ACTSC 366

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Jeffcott v Davesi Construction Group Pty Ltd
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 366
Hearing Dates:	4 September 2023 – 6 September 2023, 13 September 2023, 23 October 2023, 18 July 2024 (written submissions), 25 July 2024 (written submissions)
Decision Date:	15 November 2024
Before:	Baker J
Decision:	See [208]
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – breach of contract – Building Contract and Project Management Agreement entered into at same time – allegations of agency and sham not pressed – whether contracts inconsistent – defects in construction of residential building – whether delay in practical completion – alleged lock out from property – damages incurred owing to delay in completing property – rectification of defects – whether evidence of valid insurance policy
Legislation Cited:	Building Act 2004 (ACT), ss 25, 42, 88 Home Building Act1989 (NSW), ss 18B(1)(d), 18G
Cases Cited:	Adapt Constructions v Whittaker and Luff [2015] ACTSC 188 Baese Pty Ltd v RA Bracken Building Pty Ltd (1990) 6 BCL 137 Cappello v Hammond & Simonds NSW Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1021 Cappello v Hammond & Simonds NSW Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 57 Carbone v Fowler Homes Pty Ltd; Carbone v Fowler Homes Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 192 Hannigam v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 641 J-Corp Pty Ltd v Mladenis [2009] WASCA 157; 26 BCL 106 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298 New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd (In Liq) v Daya [2010] NSWSC 1226 Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd v KR Properties Global Pty Ltd t/as AK Properties Group ABN 62 971 068 965 [2023] NSWSC 343 Taylor v Johnson [1983] HCA 5; 151 CLR 422 Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties Ltd (1987) 39 BLR 30 Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; 219 CLR 165
Texts Cited:	JD Heydon, Heydon on Contract (Law Book Company, 2019)
Parties:	Mark Jeffcott ( Plaintiff) Davesi Construction Group Pty Ltd ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel J Foley ( Plaintiff) R Markham ( Defendant)
Solicitors Chamberlains Law ( Plaintiff) Adero Law ( Defendant)
File Number:	SC 532 of 2021

BAKER J:

Introduction

1․In 2017, the plaintiff and Ms Clare Steve purchased a property in Griffith, with the intent of jointly constructing a duplex apartment, consisting of two dwellings, one of which would be occupied by the plaintiff and his wife, the other of which would be occupied by Ms Steve, and her husband, Mr Anthony Steve. The plaintiff and Mr Steve were close friends, having worked together for many years. Mr Steve told the plaintiff that he knew a builder who could build the duplex. That builder was Mr Stevanovic, the owner and director of the defendant.
2․On 24 August 2017, the plaintiff and Ms Steve entered into a Project Management Agreement for Residential and Commercial Works in the ACT (Project Management Agreement) with the defendant. On the same day, the same parties also entered into an ACT Home Building Contract (the…

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 Jeffcott v Da Vesi Construction Group Pty Ltd 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] ACTSC 366
Decision Date: 15 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeffcott v Da Vesi Construction Group Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Mr Jeffcott, suing the defendant, Da Vesi Construction Group, for various breaches of contract related to the construction of a residential building. The dispute centred on the Building Contract and Project Management Agreement that were executed simultaneously, and the ensuing issues of delay, defects, and damages. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues the court had to determine were whether the contracts were inconsistent and if there was a valid insurance policy. Additionally, the court needed to decide if the construction delays and defects amounted to a breach of contract, and whether the plaintiff had suffered damages due to these delays. Another issue was whether there was a valid lock-out from the property, and if the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the delay in completing the property and for the rectification of defects.

The court found that the contracts were not inconsistent and that there was indeed a valid insurance policy. It was determined that the construction delays and defects constituted a breach of contract, and the plaintiff had incurred damages due to these delays. The court found that there was no valid lock-out from the property. The plaintiff was awarded damages for the delay in completing the property and for the rectification of defects. The court also ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

The final orders of the court included awarding the plaintiff damages for the delay in completing the property and for the rectification of defects, along with ordering that the parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [208]

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.