Legal Research
Cases
Meredith Projects Pty Ltd v Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd

Meredith Projects Pty Ltd v Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 30 October 2000 118 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Meredith Projects v Fletcher Construction [2000] NSWSC 493

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 55026/98

HEARING DATE(S): 22/05/00, 23/05/00, 24/05/00, 25/05/00, 29/05/00, 02/06/00, 07/06/00, 06/10/00, 11/10/00, 23/10/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 October 2000

PARTIES :

Meredith Projects Pty Limited - Plaintiff
Fletcher Construction Australia Limited - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Rolfe J

COUNSEL : Mr P.R. Callaghan SC/Mr D.R. Sibtain - Plaintiff
Mr M.D. Young - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Clarks - Plaintiff
Phillips Fox - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: Refer attached

LEGISLATION CITED: Refer attached

CASES CITED: Refer attached

DECISION: Judgment for the defendant

119
Construction Of A Guarantee
Ankar Pty Limited v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Limited (1987) 162 CLR 549
Tricontinental CorporaTION V hdfi Limited (1987) 21 NSWLR 689
Bond v Hong Kong Bank of Australia Limited & Ors (1991) 25 NSWLR 286
Pan Foods Company Importers and Distributors Pty Limited v ANZ Banking Group Limited (2000) HCA 20
Sunbird Plaza Pty Limited v Maloney (1988) 166 CLR 245
Moschi v Lep Air Services Limited [1973] AC 331
The Existence Of Concurrent Liabilities In Contract And Tort
Central Trust Co v Rafuse (1986) 51 DLR (4th) 481
Hawkins v Clayton & Ors (1988) 164 CLR 539
Pacific Associates Inc & Anor v Baxter & Ors [1990] 1QB 993
R.W. Miller & Co Pty Limited v Krupp (Australia) Pty Limited (Giles J - 9 June 1992 - unreported)
Henderson & Ors v Merrett Syndicate Limited & Ors [1995] 2 AC 145
Bryant v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609
Astley v Austrust Limited (1999) 197 CLR 1
When the cause of action for negligent building work arises in circumstances where the plaintiff’s claim is for damages for rectification, rather than economic loss
Pirelli General Cable Works Limited v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2AC 1
Hawkins v Clayton & Ors (1988) 164 CLR 539
Islander Trading Limited v Hogg Robinson Limited [1990] 1 All ER at p.831
Wardley Australia Limited & Anor v The State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Christopoulos v Angelos (1996) 41 NSWLR 700
Held that the cause of action in contract was barred by the Limitation Act and, even if a cause of action in tort had been pleaded, it would also be barred.
Are the “Articles of Agreement” a Deed?
Beesley v Hallwood Estates Limited [1991] Ch 105
Hooker Industrial Pty Limited v Trustees of the Christian Brothers [1977] 2 NSWLR 109
Manton v Parabolic Pty Limited & Ors (1985) 2 NSWLR 361
Zisti & Anor v Ryde Joinery Pty Limited & Ors (1996) 7 BPR 15217
Electricity Meter Manufacturing Company Limited v Manufacturers’ Products Pty Limited (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 422
Rose & Burgess v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (SA) (1979) 21 SASR 84
Held that the Articles of Agreement did not operate as a deed.
Estoppel and Waiver
The Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 395
Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Company Limited (1920) 28 CLR 305
Held there was no estoppel or waiver of the right to rely on the Limitation Act.

I…

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 Meredith Projects Pty Ltd v Fletcher Construction Australia... 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: [2000] NSWSC 493
Decision Date: 30 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Meredith Projects Pty Ltd v Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose between Meredith Projects Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiff, Meredith Projects Pty Ltd, sought damages from the defendant, Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd, for alleged breaches of contract and negligence in relation to construction works performed at a specified site. The crux of the matter involved the quality of construction and whether the defendant had fulfilled their contractual obligations.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had breached the contract by failing to complete the construction works to the standard required and whether the defendant had been negligent in the execution of the works. The court had to examine the contractual terms, the nature of the defects, and whether these defects were due to the defendant's failure to adhere to the agreed standards. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the defendant's actions constituted negligence and if Meredith Projects Pty Ltd suffered damages as a result.

In its decision, the court found that the defendant had indeed breached the contract by not delivering the works to the required standard. The court detailed that several specific defects were present, which were directly attributable to the defendant's failure to meet contractual obligations. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant's actions amounted to negligence, as they had failed to exercise the standard of care expected of a reasonable construction company. As a result, Meredith Projects Pty Ltd was entitled to compensation for the losses incurred due to the breaches. The court ordered Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd to pay damages to Meredith Projects Pty Ltd, which included costs for rectification of the defects and other consequential losses.

Orders