Legal Research
Cases
Mainteck Services Pty Limited v Stein Heurtey SA

Mainteck Services Pty Limited v Stein Heurtey SA

Link copied

Case Copied 28 March 2013 71 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mainteck Services Pty Limited v Stein Heurtey SA and Stein Heurtey Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 266
Hearing dates: 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 July 2012, further oral submissions on 29 October 2012, further written submissions 31 October 2012
Decision date: 28 March 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
See paragraphs [307] - [308]

Catchwords:
PROCEDURE - principles regarding the adoption of a referee's report - whether referee's report should be adopted or rejected in part - whether the plaintiff should be permitted to withdraw an admission in relation to the referee's report.

CONTRACTS - construction and interpretation of contracts - whether contract void for uncertainty - courts should be astute to adopt a construction which will preserve the validity of a contract.
EVIDENCE - findings of fact - whether findings in referee's report are unreasonable or perverse.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v Cpc Energy Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 228
BestCare Foods v Origin Energy [2012] NSWSC 574
Bitannia Pty Ltd v Parkline Constructions Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 1302
Calin v Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd (1991) 173 CLR 33
Chocolate Factory Apartments v Westpoint Finance and Ors [2005] NSWSC 784
Corbett Court Pty Ltd v Quasar Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1163
Helmos Enterprises Pty Ltd v Jaylor Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 235
Hocking v Bell (1945) 71 CLR 430
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41
Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD [2001] 2 Lloyd's Rep 76
Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571
New South Wales v Bovis Lend Lease Pty Limited [2007] NSWSC 1045
Sangain Pty Ltd v Italform Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 74
Seven Sydney v Fuji Xerox [2004] NSWSC 902
Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton [1983] 1 AC 444
Thorby v Goldberg (1964) 112 CLR 597
Upper Hunter County District Council v Australian Chilling & Freezing Co Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 429
Texts Cited: K Lewison and D Hughes, The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia, (2012) Lawbook Co
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mainteck Services Pty Limited - plaintiff
Stein Heurtey SA and Ors - first defendant
Stein Heutey Australia Pty Ltd - second defendant
Representation: Counsel:
F Corsaro SC, F G Kalyk - plaintiff
P W Taylor SC, J T G Gibson - defendants
Solicitors:
Piper Alderman - plaintiff
Jones Day - defendants

File Number(s): 2007/266650

Judgment

The Proceedings

These proceedings involve questions concerning the adoption of various reports of the Referee, the Honourable Mr R L Hunter QC who issued three substantive reports, one in June 2011 a further report in July 2011 (described as an "Interim Report") and a final report in December 2011. He also issued a short letter on 20 October 2011 also described as an "Interim Report" and a three paragraph letter clarifying his December 2011 report, issued on 20 April 2012.

There is…

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 Mainteck Services Pty Limited v Stein Heurtey SA 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: [2013] NSWSC 266
Decision Date: 28 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mainteck Services Pty Limited, the plaintiff, brought an action against Stein Heurtey SA, the defendant, to recover damages for breach of contract. The dispute involved the interpretation and validity of a construction contract and the admissibility of certain evidence. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the referee's report should be adopted or rejected in part, and whether the plaintiff should be permitted to withdraw an admission in relation to the referee's report. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the contract was void for uncertainty and whether the findings in the referee's report were unreasonable or perverse.

The court began by examining the principles governing the adoption of a referee's report, noting that the referee's findings were generally binding unless they were unreasonable or perverse. In this case, the court found that the referee's conclusions were neither unreasonable nor perverse. The court then turned to the issue of whether the plaintiff could withdraw an admission concerning the referee's report. The court held that the plaintiff was not permitted to withdraw the admission, as it would undermine the integrity of the dispute resolution process. Regarding the validity of the contract, the court held that it should be construed to preserve its validity where possible, and found that the contract was not void for uncertainty.

The court ultimately held that the referee's report should be adopted in full and that the plaintiff could not withdraw the admission in relation to the report. The court found that the contract was not void for uncertainty, and that the referee's findings were reasonable and should be adopted. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application.

Orders