SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Mohamed v Adrija Pty Ltd (No 2) |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 89 |
Hearing Dates: | 19, 24 February 2021 |
| Submissions last received: Decision Date: | 17 March 2021 28 April 2022 |
Before: | McWilliam AsJ |
Decision: | See [139] |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – CIVIL LAW – Appeal from Magistrates Court – whether error in finding building contract between owners and builder lawfully terminated by builder – whether error in finding owners failed to notify builder of a change of address as required by the contract – whether notice of breach sent by builder in accordance with the contract – whether builder entitled to payment under agreed damages clause in contract CONTRACT – BUILDING CONTRACT – interpretation – whether error in implied finding that builder’s notice of breach was valid – whether subsequent termination by builder was lawful – whether error in finding no agreement or acquiescence by builder to communicate by email rather than by post as required by the contract – whether agreed damages clause in contract applied EVIDENCE – HEARSAY – whether evidence of verbal communication by the owners that they had changed address was properly excluded under hearsay rule |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) sch 2 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 69 |
Cases Cited: | Adrija Pty Ltd v Abdiwahaab Barkhadle Mohamed & Anor (Magistrates Court of the ACT, Magistrate Morrison, 27 April 2016) Adrija Pty Ltd v Abdiwahaab Barkhadle Mohamed & Anor (Magistrates Court of the ACT, Magistrate Morrison, 1 June 2016) |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Mohamed v Adrija Pty Ltd (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] ACTSC 89
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether the Magistrates Court erred in finding that the building contract was lawfully terminated by Adrija, whether Mohamed had failed to notify Adrija of the change of address as required by the contract, whether Adrija's notice of breach was in accordance with the contract, and whether Adrija was entitled to payment under the agreed damages clause in the contract. Additionally, the court was asked to consider whether there was any agreement or acquiescence by Adrija to communicate by email instead of post, as required by the contract, and whether the evidence of verbal communication by Mohamed regarding the change of address was properly excluded under the hearsay rule.
The court found that the Magistrates Court had erred in its interpretation of the contract, particularly in relation to the notice of breach and the agreed damages clause. The court held that Adrija's notice of breach was not valid as it did not comply with the contractual requirement to be in writing and signed. Furthermore, the court found that there was no evidence of an agreement or acquiescence by Adrija to communicate by email instead of post, as required by the contract. Consequently, the court held that Adrija was not entitled to payment under the agreed damages clause. The court also found that the evidence of verbal communication by Mohamed regarding the change of address was properly excluded under the hearsay rule.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the Magistrates Court be set aside, and the matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court for rehearing in light of the court's findings. The court held that Adrija was not entitled to payment under the agreed damages clause and that the termination of the building contract by Adrija was unlawful. The court further held that the evidence of verbal communication by Mohamed regarding the change of address was properly excluded under the hearsay rule.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [139]
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.