Mossop Group Pty Ltd v Contek Pty Ltd

Mossop Group Pty Ltd appealed a decision of the trial judge concerning a dispute with Contek Pty Ltd over unpaid invoices related to building works on the Lifecare and Aldi projects. Contek's claim, initially for approximately $197,000 in unpaid invoices, evolved to include 25 invoices for the Lifecare project and five for the Aldi project, many of which related to variations. Mossop denied liability for most of these sums, alleging entitlement to back charges, but eventually admitted owing $30,767.84, which it paid into court. Despite this admission and subsequent agreements on some disputed amounts, the parties continued to dispute the net amount owed under the subcontracts.

The appeal raised two primary grounds concerning the judgment sum and two grounds concerning costs. The grounds relating to the judgment sum alleged that the trial judge erred by entering judgment for an amount that encompassed the broader dispute between the parties, rather than being confined solely to the specific claims resolved at trial. The grounds relating to costs challenged the judge's approach to awarding costs, particularly in relation to an alleged unpleaded claim.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's complaints misconceived. The court held that the trial judge was correct to enter judgment reflecting the entire unpaid amount under the contracts, as this represented sums that were in dispute at the commencement of proceedings and remained unpaid at their conclusion. The court reasoned that the agreement on certain undisputed portions during the proceedings did not preclude Contek from obtaining a judgment that included these amounts, especially as they remained unpaid. The court also found no merit in the grounds relating to costs, concluding that the judge's assessment of the parties' relative success properly reflected both the pleaded issues and the practical realities of the litigation.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.