Legal Research
Cases
Lawrence v Ciantar; Ciantar v Lawrence

Lawrence v Ciantar; Ciantar v Lawrence

Link copied

Case Copied 26 April 2019 55 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Lawrence v Ciantar; Ciantar v Lawrence [2019] NSWSC 464
Hearing dates: 4, 5 February 2019
Date of orders: 26 April 2019
Decision date: 26 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity - Real Property List
Before: Henry J
Decision:
See paragraphs [234] - [236]

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS – written terms – oral terms – construction – whether plaintiff contractually obliged to carry out and complete certain works – whether joint venture agreement or contract caught by Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)

CONTRACTS – interpretation – ambiguity – evidence of surrounding circumstances – evidence of prior negotiations – evidence of subsequent conduct
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – definitions – Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) – meaning of “residential building work” – contract to do sub-division works including construction of a driveway, retention tank and drainage works – whether preparatory works under contract constituted “residential building works”
Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) ss 4, 6, 7, 7BA, 7D, 10; sch 1 cls 1, 2, 3
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 42.1
Cases Cited: Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Gardiner (2008) 238 CLR 570
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali [2002] 1 AC 251
Bayside Council v Corp Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 120
Boreland v Docker [2007] NSWCA 94
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Casa Maria Pty Limited v Trend Properties Pty Limited [1998] NSWCA 53
Centennial Coal Company Ltd v Xstrata Coal Pty Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 129
Cherry v Steele-Park (2017) 96 NSWLR 548
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Empirnall Holdings Pty Ltd v Machon Paull Partners Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 523
Grygiel v Baine [2005] NSWCA 218
Integrated Computer Services Pty Ltd v Digital Equipment Corp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1988) 5 BPR 97,326
International Air Transport Association v Ansett Australia Holdings Limited (2008) 234 CLR 151
Johnston v Brightstars Holding Company Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 150
Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 115
L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd [1974] AC 235
Lyn International Pty Ltd v Marcolongo [2011] NSWCA 303
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104
New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Diab [2015] NSWCA 133
PRA Electrical Pty Ltd v Perseverance Exploration Pty Ltd (2007) 20 VR 487
Ryledar Pty Ltd v Euphoric Pty Ltd (2007) 69 NSWLR 603
Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 359
Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2016) 260 CLR 85
Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd v Maloney (1988) 166 CLR 245
Syed Ahmad Shoaib Ali Pty Ltd v Jandson Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 228
Tamanna v Zattere; Thakorlal v Zattere; Rabac Pty Ltd v Zattere (2017) 18 BPR 37,139; [2017] NSWSC 1388
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lawrence v Ciantar; Ciantar v Lawrence and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWSC 464
Decision Date: 26 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Lawrence, the plaintiff, and Ciantar, the defendant. The dispute arose from an agreement between the parties regarding the performance of certain works, with the plaintiff contending that he was contractually bound to carry out and complete the specified tasks. The court had to determine whether the agreement constituted a joint venture arrangement or a contract subject to the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). The primary issues were the interpretation of the written and oral terms of the agreement, and whether the plaintiff was obligated to perform the works as stipulated.

The court considered the evidence of surrounding circumstances and prior negotiations to resolve any ambiguities in the contract. It also took into account the subsequent conduct of the parties in interpreting the agreement. The primary focus was on whether the written terms of the contract, when combined with the oral terms, imposed a contractual obligation on the plaintiff to carry out and complete the specified works. Furthermore, the court examined whether the contract fell under the purview of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), particularly whether the preparatory works constituted "residential building work."

In reaching its decision, the court held that the written and oral terms of the agreement did not impose a contractual obligation on the plaintiff to carry out and complete the works. The court found that the evidence of surrounding circumstances, prior negotiations, and subsequent conduct did not support the plaintiff's contention that he was contractually bound to perform the works as claimed. Additionally, the court determined that the contract did not fall within the scope of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), as the preparatory works did not constitute "residential building work" as defined in the Act. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and the defendant was awarded costs. The court held that the plaintiff was not contractually obliged to carry out and complete the specified works and that the contract did not fall under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW). The defendant was granted the relief sought, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.

Orders