Maples Winterview Pty Ltd v Liu & Anor - [2015] ACTSC 58

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Maples Winterview Pty Ltd v Liu & Anor
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 58
Hearing Dates:	23-24, 26-27 February 2015
DecisionDate:	16 July 2015
Before:	Mossop AsJ
Decision:	See [160]
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CONTRACT – standard form building contract – floor slab stage of construction not completed – claim for progress payment from owners dependent on completion of the relevant and any preceding stages of construction – test for completion of stage – failure by owners to make payment found not in breach of contract – termination of contract by builder found wrongful – no alternative basis for liability of owners pleaded by builder CONTRACT – implied duty to cooperate – failure to obtain bank loan – no breach of duty where no obligation under contract to obtain the loan
Legislation Cited:	Building Act 2004 (ACT) Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 (ACT) Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Adrija Pty Ltd v Mohamed [2013] ACTSC 120 Australis Media Holdings Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 104 Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Cardona v Brown [2012] VSCA 174 Elders IXL Ltd v National Employers’ Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd (1988) 5 ANZ Insurance Cases 60-847 Eminent Forms Pty Ltd v Formosa [2004] SASC 192 Hometeam Constructions Pty Ltd v McCauley [2005] NSWCA 303 Jackson Nominees Pty Ltd v Hanson Building Products Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 126 Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571 Ownit Homes Pty Ltd v Batchelor [1983] 2 Qd R 124 Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272
Texts Cited:	Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts (12^th edition, Sweet & Maxwell)
Parties:	Maples Winterview Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Bin Liu (First Defendant) Chen Huan Li (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr R Thomas (Plaintiff) Self-represented (First Defendant) Self-represented (Second Defendant)
Solicitors Fitzgerald Naylor Lawyers (Plaintiff) Self-represented (First Defendant) Self-represented (Second Defendant)
File Number:	SC 418 of 2013

Introduction

The plaintiff is a building company. It has brought proceedings against the first and second defendants, the joint owners of a property which is located in Roy Marika Street in Bonner in the Australian Capital Territory (the premises).

The claim arises out of a relatively simple standard form building contract. It seeks payment of an amount said to be owed by the defendants following termination of the building contract by the plaintiff.

The determination of the claim is complicated by four factors. The first is the fact that during the construction project that has led to the claim the person responsible for the plaintiff’s construction of the dwelling died and the record keeping by the plaintiff was not as good as it might have been. The second is the fact that the defendants, for whom English is a second language, were unrepresented during the course of the proceedings. The third is that because of the scope…

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 Maples Winterview Pty Ltd v Liu & Anor 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: [2015] ACTSC 58
Decision Date: 16 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Maples Winterview Pty Ltd v Liu & Anor, the dispute centred around a standard form building contract, specifically addressing issues related to the completion of construction stages and the entitlement to progress payments. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The builder, Maples Winterview Pty Ltd, sought payment for the progress made on the construction project, which was contingent upon the completion of the floor slab stage and any preceding stages. The owners, Liu and another, refused to make the payment, leading to the builder terminating the contract. Subsequently, the builder filed a claim against the owners for the outstanding amount and other related costs.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the contract regarding the completion of construction stages and the builder's right to terminate the contract. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the owners' failure to obtain a bank loan constituted a breach of the implied duty to cooperate. The builder argued that the owners' actions warranted termination of the contract, while the owners maintained that the builder's termination was wrongful and unjustified. The court had to examine the terms of the contract, the obligations of both parties, and the circumstances under which the builder could lawfully terminate the agreement.

The court found that the floor slab stage had not been completed as required by the contract, thereby negating the builder's claim for the progress payment. The builder's termination of the contract was deemed wrongful as no valid grounds for termination were established. Furthermore, the court held that the owners' failure to obtain the bank loan did not amount to a breach of the implied duty to cooperate, as there was no contractual obligation to secure such a loan. Consequently, the builder's claim against the owners was dismissed in its entirety.

The court ordered that Maples Winterview Pty Ltd pay the costs of the proceeding, as determined by the Registrar. The owners were not held liable for any payment to the builder, and the builder's wrongful termination did not entitle them to any additional damages or costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [160]

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.