Mohamed v Adrija Pty Ltd (No 2)

The appeal before the court was between Mohamed, the appellant, and Adrija Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute centred on the termination of a building contract between the parties, with Mohamed asserting that the contract was wrongfully terminated by Adrija. Adrija contended that Mohamed failed to notify them of a change of address, as required by the contract, and that the termination was lawful. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the court being asked to review the findings and decisions of the Magistrates Court.

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.