Legal Research
Cases
LHRE Group Pty Ltd v Complete Hire & Sales Pty Ltd

LHRE Group Pty Ltd v Complete Hire & Sales Pty Ltd

Case [2025] WADC 81 12 November 2025

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   LHRE GROUP PTY LTD -v- COMPLETE HIRE & SALES PTY LTD [2025] WADC 81
CORAM:   WALLACE DCJ
HEARD:   25, 26 & 27 JUNE 2025 WITH SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 14 JULY 2025
DELIVERED          :   12 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 169 of 2024
BETWEEN:   LHRE GROUP PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
COMPLETE HIRE & SALES PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA) - Whether contract can be inferred from objective circumstances - Whether Jones v Dunkel inferences can be drawn - Post-contractual silence as admission - Whether ostensible or apparent authority can be relied upon positively by principal - Whether debt was assigned

Legislation:

Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA)
Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA)
Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)
Property Law Act 1969 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Plaintiff successful

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr L N Firios
Defendant	:	Mr M R Collins

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Squire Patton Boggs
Defendant	:	Hotchkin Hanly

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd [2025] HCA 10
Australian Energy Ltd v Lennard Oil NL [1986] 2 Qd R 216
B Seppelt & Sons Ltd v Commissioner for Main Roads (1975) 1 BPR 9147
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Cargill Australia Ltd v Viterra Malt Pty Ltd (No 28) [2022] VSC 13
Chamberlain v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 521
DM Drainage & Constructions Pty Ltd v Karara Mining Ltd [No 6] [2021] WASC 410
Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437
Glass v Pioneer Rubber Works of Australia Ltd [1906] VLR 754
Harry S Bagg's Liquidation Warehouse Pty Ltd v Whittaker (1982) 44 NSWLR 421
Haynes v McNeil (1906) 8 WALR 186
Hightime Investments Pty Ltd v Adamus Resources Ltd [2012] WASC 295
Hughes v NM Superannuation Pty Ltd (1993) 29 NSWLR 653
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Junker v Hepburn [2010] NSWSC 88
La Mela v Franklexis Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 83
LHRE Group Pty Ltd v Complete Hire & Sales Pty Ltd [2024] WADC 61
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
Lysaght Bros & Co Ltd v Falk [1905] HCA 7; (1905) 2 CLR 421
Mirabela Nickel Ltd (in liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Mining Standards International Pty Ltd [2025] WASCA 82
Nominal Defendant v Owens (1978) 22 ALR 128
OSB Group Pty Ltd v Complete Hire & Sales Pty Ltd [2024] WASC 310
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35
Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd [2018] HCA 4
Quickway Constructions Pty Ltd v Electrical Energy Pty Ltd [2017]…

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 LHRE Group Pty Ltd v Complete Hire & Sales Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: LHRE Group Pty Ltd v Complete Hire & Sales Pty Ltd [2025] WADC 81
Case: [2025] WADC 81
Decision Date: 12 NOVEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of LHRE Group Pty Ltd v Complete Hire & Sales Pty Ltd, the Federal Court was tasked with determining several pivotal issues arising from a dispute in the construction industry. The dispute centred around whether a contract could be inferred from the objective circumstances, the applicability of the Jones v Dunkel inferences, the implications of post-contractual silence as an admission, and whether ostensible or apparent authority could be relied upon positively by a principal. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a debt was assigned.

The primary legal issues before the court involved interpreting the terms of the contract between the parties, determining if the defendant had any obligation to pay the sums claimed by the plaintiff, and assessing the validity of claims under the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA). The court needed to examine whether the conduct of the parties, including their post-contractual communications, could give rise to a binding agreement or an admission of debt. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the plaintiff could rely on the doctrine of ostensible authority to enforce the payment terms against the defendant.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the contract between the parties was not expressly documented, but the objective circumstances and the conduct of the parties suggested the existence of an agreement. The court found that the inferences drawn from Jones v Dunkel were applicable, indicating that the defendant's silence following the plaintiff's invoice could be construed as an admission of liability. The court also ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on ostensible or apparent authority to enforce the payment terms because there was no evidence of a representation by the defendant that would lead the plaintiff to reasonably believe that the defendant had the authority to obligate the company to pay. Finally, the court concluded that the debt in question was not assigned to the plaintiff, as there was no evidence of a formal assignment agreement.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum claimed, minus certain deductions for non-compliant variations. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for reliance on ostensible authority and for the assignment of debt. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of contracts in the context of the Security of Payment Act and the implications of post-contractual conduct.

Orders