Pelligra Build Pty Ltd v Australian Crane and Machinery Pty Ltd

Case

[2020] VCC 545

5 May 2020


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Pelligra Build Pty Ltd v Australian Crane and Machinery Pty Ltd [2020] VCC 545 [2020] VCC 545 5 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pelligra Build Pty Ltd v Australian Crane and Machinery Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from a claim for the recovery of an outstanding balance of payment claims under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (BCISP Act). Pelligra Build Pty Ltd sought to recover the outstanding balance from Australian Crane and Machinery Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the invoices were validly served under the BCISP Act, and if the payment claims were properly served despite being sent by email in violation of the contractual terms. Additionally, the court had to determine if the provisions regarding progress payments in the printed contract form or those appearing in an attached typed schedule established the relevant reference dates for the purposes of section 9 of the BCISP Act. Furthermore, the court needed to decide if the typed schedule overrode references in the schedule to various stages or milestones, and if the respondent was precluded by section 16(4) of the BCISP Act from relying on contentions that the stages were incomplete.

The court found that the payment claims were validly served under the BCISP Act, despite being sent by email in breach of the contractual terms. It was held that the receipt of the emails by the respondent's proprietor was admitted. The court determined that the provisions in the typed schedule established the relevant reference dates for the purposes of section 9 of the BCISP Act. The court also found that the typed schedule did override references in the schedule to various stages or milestones, and that the respondent was precluded by section 16(4) of the BCISP Act from relying on contentions that the stages were incomplete. The court further held that the respondent was entitled to rely on the defence of payment based on the allocation of payments made to the earliest liability. The court ordered judgment for the plaintiff with interest at the rate fixed under section 2 of the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Construction Law

  • Commercial Law

Legal Concepts

  • Breach of Contract

  • Compensatory Damages

  • Statutory Interpretation

  • Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

4