Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Lawrence v Ciantar [2020] NSWCA 89 Hearing dates: 28 November 2019 Date of orders: 12 May 2020 Decision date: 12 May 2020 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Meagher JA at [142]; Gleeson JA at [143] Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Order the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.Catchwords: CONTRACTS – Construction – Interpretation – Principles of construction of commercial contracts.
CONTRACTS – Breach of contract – Consequences of breach – Right to termination – No specific performance.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – Definition of “residential building work” – Preliminary works.Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) Cases Cited: Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd (The Saxon Star) [1959] AC 133; [1958] 1 All ER 725
Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Gardiner (2008) 238 CLR 570; [2008] HCA 57
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153; [2001] NSWCA 61
Butt v Long (1953) 88 CLR 476; [1953] HCA 76
Cherry v Steele-Park (2017) 96 NSWLR 548; [2017] NSWCA 295
Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337; [1982] HCA 24
County Securities Pty Ltd v Challenger Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 193
Ecosse Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Gee Dee Nominees Pty Ltd (2017) 261 CLR 544; [2017] HCA 12
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7
Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603; [2009] NSWCA 407
Grygiel v Baine [2005] NSWCA 218
Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 115; [2007] HCA 61
Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 623; [1989] HCA 23
Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA (2014) 89 NSWLR 633; [2014] NSWCA 184
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37
Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 359; [1931] HCA 21
Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2016) 260 CLR 85; [2016] HCA 47
Victoria v Tatts Group Ltd (2016) 90 ALJR 392; [2016] HCA 5Texts Cited: J D Heydon, Heydon on Contract (2019, Thomson Reuters) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wayne Lawrence (Appellant)
Paul William Ciantar (First Respondent)
Alice Sammut (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J C Kelly SC with D McDonald-Norman (Appellant)
E Peden SC with T Bateman and M J H Waters (Respondents)
Walker Hedges & Co (Appellant)
McLean & Associates (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2019/159837 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity Division
- Citation:
- [2019] NSWSC 464
- Date of Decision:
- 26 April 2019
- Before:
- Henry J
- File Number(s):
- 2017/336803
HEADNOTE
[This…
Continue reading Lawrence v Ciantar
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Lawrence v Ciantar [2020] NSWCA 89
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 89
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Lawrence v Ciantar*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute arising from a contract for building works. The appellant, Mr Lawrence, had entered into a contract with the respondents, Mr and Mrs Ciantar, for the construction of a dwelling. A dispute arose concerning the scope of the works and whether certain preliminary activities constituted "residential building work" under the *Home Building Act 1989* (NSW).
The Court was required to determine whether the preliminary works undertaken by the appellant fell within the definition of "residential building work" as defined by the *Home Building Act 1989* (NSW). Further, the Court had to consider the principles of contractual construction applicable to commercial agreements and the consequences of a breach of contract, specifically in relation to the right to terminate and the availability of specific performance.
The Court applied established principles of contractual interpretation, emphasising that the meaning of a contract is to be ascertained by reference to the language used by the parties, read in its context and against the background of the factual matrix. The Court found that the preliminary works did not constitute "residential building work" under the Act, as they were preparatory in nature and not part of the actual construction of the dwelling. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to rely on certain provisions of the Act that would have otherwise protected him. The Court also addressed the consequences of the breach, confirming that while termination was a valid remedy, specific performance was not an appropriate order in the circumstances.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.
The Court was required to determine whether the preliminary works undertaken by the appellant fell within the definition of "residential building work" as defined by the *Home Building Act 1989* (NSW). Further, the Court had to consider the principles of contractual construction applicable to commercial agreements and the consequences of a breach of contract, specifically in relation to the right to terminate and the availability of specific performance.
The Court applied established principles of contractual interpretation, emphasising that the meaning of a contract is to be ascertained by reference to the language used by the parties, read in its context and against the background of the factual matrix. The Court found that the preliminary works did not constitute "residential building work" under the Act, as they were preparatory in nature and not part of the actual construction of the dwelling. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to rely on certain provisions of the Act that would have otherwise protected him. The Court also addressed the consequences of the breach, confirming that while termination was a valid remedy, specific performance was not an appropriate order in the circumstances.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Order the appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.
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.