Jolin Nominees Pty Ltd v Daniel Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd

The case of Jolin Nominees Pty Ltd v Daniel Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute arose between the parties over a domestic building contract where the builder, Daniel Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd, had carried out variations without complying with the statutory notice provisions outlined in the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995. The homeowner, Jolin Nominees Pty Ltd, sought to recover the costs of the variations and argued that the completion date should be adjusted to account for the variations. The central issue was whether the builder could recover the cost of the variations despite non-compliance with statutory notice provisions and whether the completion date could be adjusted to account for the builder's inability to recover those costs.

The court examined the statutory provisions for variations and whether the builder's non-compliance with the notice requirements precluded recovery of costs. The court found that the statutory provisions for variations in the Act were not contingent upon adherence to contractual notice procedures, and thus, the builder could still recover the cost of variations. Furthermore, the court interpreted the term 'varied in accordance with' to mean that the variation must comply with the Act, not necessarily the contract. Regarding the completion date, the court held that 'significant or exceptional hardship' included the consequences of the builder's inability to recover money. The court determined that the completion date could be adjusted to account for this hardship.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which subsequently dismissed the appeal. The court held that the statutory provisions for adjusting the completion date were not affected by the builder's non-compliance with contractual notice procedures. The Court of Appeal concluded that the builder could recover the cost of variations and that the completion date could be adjusted to account for the builder's inability to recover those costs. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the decision of the lower court.