Keegan v Ballast Point Pty Ltd

Case [2022] NSWCA 179


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Keegan v Ballast Point Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 179
Hearing dates: 31 August 2022
Date of orders: 13 September 2022
Decision date: 13 September 2022
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Brereton JA at [57];
Kirk JA at [58]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – residential building contract – where general conditions of contract provided for making by builder of monthly payment claims – where special conditions appointed architect to administer contract on owner’s behalf, including by assessing and certifying builder’s payment claims – whether owner’s obligation to pay and builder’s entitlement to payment only in respect of amounts certified as due and payable by architect

Cases Cited:

Beaufort Developments (NI) Ltd v Gilbert-Ash NI Ltd [1999] 1 AC 266

Costain Building and Civil Engineering Ltd v Scottish Rugby Union plc (1994) 69 BLR 80

Dixon v South Australian Railways Commissioner (1923) 34 CLR 71; [1923] HCA 45

Dunlop & Ranken Ltd v Hendall Steel Structures Ltd [1957] 1 WLR 1102

Glynn v Margetson & Co [1893] AC 351

Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 3850; [2005] EWCA Civ 814

Lubenham Fidelities and Investments Co Ltd v South Pembrokeshire District Council (1986) 33 BLR 39

Northern Regional Health Authority v Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd [1984] QB 644

Peninsula Balmain Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 211

Robertson v French (1803) 4 East 130

V601 Developments Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 849

Walton v Illawarra [2011] NSWSC 1188

Wilkie v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 522; [2005] HCA 17

Texts Cited:

S Furst and V Ramsey, Keating on Construction Contracts (11th ed, 2021, Sweet & Maxwell)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Richard Keegan (Appellant)
Ballast Point Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:

M Green SC with JC Rogers (Appellant)
G Campbell (Respondent)

Solicitors:

Addisons (Appellant)
D’Arcy Sloman Peacock Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/118812
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Date of Decision:
25 March 2022
Before:
S J Gibb DCJ
File Number(s):
2020/319941

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The appellant as Owner and respondent as Builder were parties to a cost plus residential building contract, which was in a standard form prepared by the Master Builders Association of New South Wales. After works had been completed, an issue arose as to whether moneys remained owing by the Owner to the Builder for the cost of works undertaken and a builder’s fee.

The general conditions of contract (clause 17) provided for the making by the Builder of monthly payment claims, which were to be paid within 10 days of the Builder submitting the relevant claim. The Special Conditions appointed an Architect to administer the contract on the Owner’s behalf. Special Condition 3 provided that the Architect was to assess and certify the…

Continue reading Keegan v Ballast Point Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Keegan v Ballast Point Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 179
Case
[2022] NSWCA 179
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *Keegan v Ballast Point Pty Ltd* concerned a residential building contract. The builder, Keegan, sought payment from the owner, Ballast Point Pty Ltd, for work undertaken. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of the contract's general and special conditions regarding the process for payment claims and the architect's role in certifying such claims. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the owner's obligation to pay the builder, and consequently the builder's entitlement to payment, was strictly limited to amounts that had been assessed and certified as due and payable by the architect. This question required the court to consider the interplay between the general conditions of the contract, which provided for monthly payment claims by the builder, and the special conditions, which appointed an architect to administer the contract on behalf of the owner, including the assessment and certification of these claims.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the special conditions of the contract clearly stipulated that the architect was appointed to administer the contract and that this included the crucial function of assessing and certifying the builder's payment claims. The court held that the contract, as amended by the special conditions, made the architect's certification a prerequisite for the builder's entitlement to payment and the owner's obligation to pay. This interpretation underscored the importance of the architect's role as the designated certifier under the contract.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.