Khanna v Kulathayendran - [2012] VSC 250

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE

Not Restricted

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2011 02926

RAKESH KUMAR KHANNA and	Appellants
SUDHA KHANNA
– and –
NADA KULATHAYENDRAN
Respondent

---

JUDGE:	MUKHTAR AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 February 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 June 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Khanna v Kulathayendran
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 250

---

APPEAL ― Appeal from Tribunal on a question of law ― Domestic building contract ― Builder’s claims for variations and final payment under contract ― Owners’ claim for incomplete or unperformed works under contract ― Owners’ additional claim for damages for overdue completion under separate agreement which modified contract ― Tribunal’s decision based apparently on a quantum meruit basis and credibility findings ― No apparent regard to contractual or statutory provisions ― Appeal allowed

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr C Northrop	Scammell Black Mileo
For the Defendant	Mr M T Lapirow	Davies Moloney

HIS HONOUR:

This appeal from an order of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal concerns a dispute under a domestic building contract.

The appellants are the owners of land at 8 First Street in Clayton South. They engaged the respondent to build, behind their existing home, a single storey unit to be made available as a rental property. The contract price under the standard form “New Homes Contract” published by the Master Builders Association was $171 200. As the price exceeded $5000 it was a “major domestic building contract “as defined in the Domestic Building Contracts Act. Under the Act a builder must not make a major domestic building contract unless it is in writing, sets out in full all the terms of the contract, and the contract must include the plans and specifications of the work.[1] Such a contract also attracts the provisions of Part 3 of the Act which includes laws about the variation of plans and specifications, progress payments, completion of works, and the entitlement of a builder to demand final payment under the contract.
[1]Section 31

The case in the Tribunal was conducted by “pleadings” in, I think, good form and content. In his points of claim which was all predicated on the written contract (as it had to be), the builder claimed payment for the cost of six variations of $7390 and $17 120 as payment of the Final Claim on Completion of the Works. (I am using terminology in accordance with defined terms in the contract.) That makes a total claim of $24 510. As an indicator to what will unfold in this appeal, the variations were alleged to be unwritten and made in conversations between the builder and the first appellant Mr Khanna (who is the husband of the second appellant). But for the purposes of this appeal there are only three variations that matter, which are small in amount, but as can happen in these cases, they spawn legal disputes and attrition at a cost that exceeds the amount at…

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 Khanna v Kulathayendran

Details

AGLC: Khanna v Kulathayendran [2012] VSC 250
Case: [2012] VSC 250
Decision Date: 15 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Khanna v Kulathayendran, the parties were engaged in a dispute concerning a domestic building contract. The builder, Khanna, sought to recover amounts due for variations and final payment under the contract, while the owners, Kulathayendran, claimed for incomplete or unperformed works under the same contract. Additionally, the owners sought damages for overdue completion under a separate agreement which they argued modified the original contract. The dispute was brought before the court following an appeal from a Tribunal decision.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the contractual and statutory provisions in making its decision. The court was required to determine if the Tribunal's decision, which appeared to be based on a quantum meruit basis and credibility findings, had appropriately considered the contractual terms and statutory requirements. The owners argued that the Tribunal had failed to adequately apply the contractual and statutory provisions, leading to an unjust outcome.

The court found that the Tribunal's decision did not appear to take into account the contractual or statutory provisions governing the dispute. The court held that the Tribunal had based its decision on a quantum meruit basis, which was not aligned with the contractual terms. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the contractual and statutory framework in resolving disputes, particularly in construction contracts. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the contractual and statutory provisions.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal and the direction that the Tribunal reconsider the matter, ensuring that its decision was based on the contractual and statutory provisions that applied to the dispute. The court's decision underscored the necessity for tribunals to carefully consider the specific terms of contracts and relevant legislation when making decisions in construction disputes.

Orders