Mrocki v Mountview Prestige Homes Pty Ltd - [2012] VSCA 74

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2011 0014 S APCI 2011 0119
LEON MROCKI and HARRY MROCKI	Appellants
v
MOUNTVIEW PRESTIGE HOMES PTY LTD (ACN 092 818 669)	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and HANSEN JJA and HOLLINGWORTH AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	5 March 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 April 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 74	1st revision, page 7, footnote 2
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2010] VSC 624 (Dixon J)

---

Contract – Building Construction – Construction of contract – Whether builder or contract manager – Surrounding circumstances – Contract ambiguous – Prior oral agreement rejecting a particular provision.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr I D Martindale SC with Mr R N Cameron	Sackville Wilks Pty Ltd
For the Respondent	Mr B B Carr	David Nairoo & Associates

BUCHANAN JA:

This appeal is concerned with the role of the respondent in the construction of a building consisting of two apartments and swimming pools for the appellants. If, as the appellants contend, the respondent’s role was that of a builder, the respondent is liable for defects in the building and pools. On the other hand, if the respondent’s role was that of a contract manager, as the respondent contends, it is only liable if it failed to properly manage the contracts entered into by the appellants with those who constructed the apartments and swimming pools.

The appellants, who were real estate developers, owned land in Brighton upon which the building was to be constructed. The respondent was a company controlled by Martin Vella, who had experience in supervising the construction of expensive residential developments.

In November 2006 the appellants obtained a town planning permit for the development. They met Mr Vella and entered into negotiations with him for the construction of the development. Mr Vella was shown six sheets of town planning or concept drawings. He said he would undertake the construction for cost plus a margin of 10 per cent. The appellants refused this request and in turn proposed that the appellants would pay for the materials and labour and that Mr Vella would act as construction manager for a fee.

Mr Vella told the appellants that his estimate of the cost of construction was between $4,400,000 and $4,500,000. The appellants, on the other hand, said that the cost should be about $3,500,000. They asked Mr Vella to base his fee on that figure. Eventually a fee of $247,500 was agreed.

Mr Vella requested a form of contract for construction management from the Housing Industry Association (‘the Association’). He was told by a staff member of the Association that under the insurance he held he could not enter into a construction management agreement. He was advised to use the form for a cost plus contract. Mr Vella obtained a copy of a cost plus agreement form from the Association and proceeded to modify the agreement in an attempt to reflect the agreement he understood the respondent had reached with the appellants…

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 Mrocki v Mountview Prestige Homes Pty Ltd 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: [2012] VSCA 74
Decision Date: 26 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mrocki and Mountview Prestige Homes Pty Ltd appeared before the court to determine the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties. The dispute centred on whether Mrocki was employed as a builder or as a contract manager by Mountview. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue was to interpret the terms of the agreement between the parties. The contract did not explicitly state whether Mrocki's role was that of a builder or a contract manager. The court was required to examine the surrounding circumstances and the content of the contract to ascertain the true nature of the relationship. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a prior oral agreement, which excluded a particular contractual provision, rendered the written contract ambiguous.

The court found that the contract was ambiguous as to the role of Mrocki. The surrounding circumstances, including the prior oral agreement, indicated that the parties intended for Mrocki to act as a contract manager rather than a builder. The court held that the prior oral agreement effectively excluded a specific provision in the written contract, thereby clarifying the parties' intentions. As a result, the court ruled that Mrocki was employed as a contract manager by Mountview.

The court's decision was definitive, and no further orders were necessary beyond the interpretation of the contract. The court's reasoning provided clarity on the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties, resolving the dispute.

Orders