Legal Research
Cases
John Beever v Roads Corporation

John Beever v Roads Corporation

Case [2018] VSC 635 26 October 2018

Summary Judgment

Limitation Periods

Admissibility of Evidence

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LIST

Not Restricted

S ECI 2018 0078

JOHN BEEVER (AUST) PTY LTD	Plaintiff
v
ROADS CORPORATION	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Digby J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 June 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 October 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	John Beever v Roads Corporation
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 635

---

BUILDING – Reference date for payment claim – Whether jurisdictional fact satisfied – Whether inadequate payment claim documentation precludes finding reference date - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic), s 16(2)(a)(i).

BUILDING – Whether payment claim includes excluded amount – Whether variation is claimable variation – Whether variation was requested or directed - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic), ss 10(3), 16(2)(a)(i), 16(4).

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary judgment – Application to strike out pleadings – Whether pleadings disclose cause of action – Whether pleadings address causation – Whether pleadings address loss and damage – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), r 23.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where proceeding must be commenced by originating motion – Whether judgment is a summary judgment – Applicable approach to and test for judgment – Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic), s 16(2)(a)(i); Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), s 61; Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), r 22; Supreme Court (Chapter 1 Summary Judgment Amendment) Rules 2015 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M A Robins QC	Champions Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr M Scott QC with Mr B Mason	Clayton Utz

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

The Payment Claim...................................................................................................................... 1
The Plaintiff’s Application........................................................................................................... 1
The Defendant’s Application...................................................................................................... 2
The Present Judgment.................................................................................................................. 3

Background......................................................................................................................................... 3

The Bridge...................................................................................................................................... 3
Welding Dispute........................................................................................................................... 4
Payment Claim 16......................................................................................................................... 6

The SOP Application......................................................................................................................... 8

The Security of Payment Regime............................................................................................... 8
Reconciliation of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) and the SOP Act................................ 9
The Originating Process................................................................................................... 10
Relevant Principles for Summary Judgment................................................................. 11
Requirements of the SOP Act.......................................................................................... 13
Nature of ‘Summary’ Judgment under the SOP Act.................................................... 15

Questions for Summary Judgment........................................................................................... 18
The Plaintiff’s Application for Summary Judgment.............................................................. 19

Reference Date Objection............................................................................................................... 19

Determining a Reference Date.................................................................................................. 20
Contractual Framework for a Reference Date......................................................................... 21
Submissions – Reference Date.................................................................................................. 23
Plaintiff’s Submissions...................................................................................................... 23
Defendant’s Submissions................................................................................................. 25
Plaintiff’s Reply Submissions.......................................................................................... 28

Considerations – Reference Date.............................................................................................. 29
Conclusion – Reference Date........................................................................................... 35

Formal Requirements Objection................................................................................................... 35

Objective Assessment................................................................................................................. 36
Submissions – Formal Requirements...................................................................................... 37
Plaintiff’s Submissions...................................................................................................... 37
Defendant’s Submissions................................................................................................. 38

Considerations – Formal Requirements.................................................................................. 39
Conclusion – Formal Requirements......................................................................................... 39

Claimable Variations Objection.................................................................................................... 40

Included and Excluded Amounts under the SOP Act.......................................................... 40
Submissions – Claimable Variations....................................................................................... 42
Plaintiff’s Submissions...................................................................................................... 42
Defendant’s Submissions................................................................................................. 46

Considerations – Claimable Variations................................................................................... 50
Conclusion – Claimable Variations.......................................................................................... 51

Technical Objection to the Plaintiff’s Supporting Affidavit Material................................... 51

The Strike Out Application............................................................................................................ 52

Defendant’s Submissions – Paragraphs [6] to [12]................................................................. 53
Plaintiff’s Submissions – Paragraphs [6] to…

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 John Beever v Roads Corporation

Details

AGLC: John Beever v Roads Corporation [2018] VSC 635
Case: [2018] VSC 635
Decision Date: 26 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between John Beever and Roads Corporation was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. John Beever, a contractor, alleged that Roads Corporation, the principal, failed to make full payment for works completed under a building contract. The primary issues for determination were whether the jurisdictional fact of the payment claim was satisfied and whether the payment claim documentation was adequate. Additionally, the court examined whether the payment claim included an excluded amount, and whether a variation was a claimable variation under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic).

The court held that the reference date for the payment claim was not adequately established as a jurisdictional fact, as required by section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The claim did not specify the date on which the claim was made, which is a critical requirement under the legislation. Furthermore, the court found that the payment claim did not include an excluded amount and that the variation was a claimable variation. The court determined that the variation was requested by the principal and thus fell within the scope of claimable variations as per sections 10(3), 16(2)(a)(i), and 16(4) of the Act.

The court also examined the application for summary judgment and the application to strike out the pleadings. The court found that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action, did not address causation, and did not adequately address the loss and damage claimed. Under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), rule 23, the court determined that the proceedings should be dismissed. Additionally, the court considered whether the proceeding was required to be commenced by an originating motion, the applicable approach to judgment, and the test for judgment, as set out in section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Act, section 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), rule 22 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), and the Supreme Court (Chapter 1 Summary Judgment Amendment) Rules 2015 (Vic). The court concluded that the proceeding was not properly commenced and that the application for summary judgment was not valid.

The court ordered that the application for summary judgment be dismissed and that the proceedings be dismissed with costs. The court found that the pleadings were insufficient to establish a cause of action and that the claim did not meet the requirements of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic). The court also found that the application for summary judgment was not properly made and that the proceeding was not appropriately commenced. The court's decision highlights the importance of properly establishing jurisdictional facts and ensuring that payment claims comply with the statutory requirements.

Orders