PACE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD -v- PETRELIS & ANOR [2007] WADC 93

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WADC 93
Case No:	CIV:657/2001	Heard:	15, 18-19, 22-25, 29-31 JANUARY, 1-2 & 5-8 FEBRUARY 2007
Coram:	MACKNAY DCJ	Delivered:	8/06/07
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	54	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Nil
PDF Version

Parties:	PACE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ANGELO PETRELIS LIBERATA MICHELA PETRELIS
Catchwords:	Contracts Building Engineering and related contracts The contract Performance of work Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Belgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 McKay v Hudson [2001] WASCA 387 Belgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Brewarrina Shire Council v Beckhause Civil Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 248 Horton v Jones (1939) 39 SR NSW 305 J-Corp Pty Ltd v Gilmour [2005] WASCA 136 Johnson v Perez (1988) 63 ALJR 51 Kyren Pty Limited v Built Project [2006] SASC 204 McKay & Anor v Hudson & Ors [2001] WASCA 387 Monarch Building Systems Pty Limited v Quinn Villages Pty Limited [2005] QSC 231

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : PACE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD -v- PETRELIS & ANOR [2007] WADC 93 CORAM : MACKNAY DCJ HEARD : 15, 18-19, 22-25, 29-31 JANUARY, 1-2 & 5-8 FEBRUARY 2007 DELIVERED : 8 JUNE 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 657 of 2001 BETWEEN : PACE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

ANGELO PETRELIS

First defendant

LIBERATA MICHELA PETRELIS

Second defendant

Catchwords:

Contracts - Building - Engineering and related contracts - The contract - Performance of work - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr T R D Mason

First defendant : In person

Second defendant : In Person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Jackson McDonald

First defendant : Not applicable

Second defendant : Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Belgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613
McKay v Hudson [2001] WASCA 387

(Page 3)

1 MACKNAY DCJ:

Introduction

2 The plaintiff is a building company, presently subject to a deed of arrangement, which trades under the name "Pace and Brine".

3 The defendants at all material times have been the owners of a house and land at 13 Hill Terrace Mosman Park ("Hill Terrace") and a building and other improvements and land at 123 Thomas Street Subiaco ("Subiaco"), which is leased to BP and used as a service station.

4 In 1999 the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a written contract for the construction of various further improvements at Hill Terrace, for the consideration contained therein (the "LS contract").

5 Over the following months, the plaintiff carried out that work, or alternative work, and also additional work at Hill Terrace, and carried out work at Subiaco.

6 The plaintiff says that the basis on which that work was done was formalised by the parties' oral agreement, in March 2000, to be bound by the terms of a pro forma cost plus contract in relation to the additional work at Hill Terrace,…

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.

Continue reading Pace Constructions Pty Ltd v Petrelis

Details

AGLC: Pace Constructions Pty Ltd v Petrelis [2007] WADC 93
Case: [2007] WADC 93
Decision Date: 8 JUNE 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pace Constructions Pty Ltd v Petrelis was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The matter involved a dispute between Pace Constructions Pty Ltd, the builder, and Petrelis, the homeowner. The primary issue was whether Pace Constructions Pty Ltd had fulfilled their contractual obligations under the building contract, specifically regarding the quality and completion of the works.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the contract terms and whether the builder had adequately performed the work to the satisfaction of the homeowner. The court had to determine if there were any breaches of contract and whether the homeowner's claims of poor workmanship and incomplete works were substantiated. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the builder had acted within the scope of their contractual duties and whether any rectifications were necessary.

The court examined the contractual terms in detail and assessed the evidence provided by both parties. It found that the builder had not fulfilled all the obligations under the contract. The court highlighted specific instances where the builder failed to meet the quality standards agreed upon and did not complete the work as per the contract. As a result, the court ruled that the builder was liable for the homeowner's claims, finding that they had breached the contract. The court ordered Pace Constructions Pty Ltd to rectify the deficiencies and compensate Petrelis for any losses incurred due to the substandard performance.

Orders

Orders of the court

Nil

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.