Pro-Invest Pitt Street Development Pty Ltd v Charter Hall Holdings Pty Ltd

Pro-Invest Pitt Street Development Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) sued Charter Hall Holdings Pty Ltd (the defendant) for loss of chance to build a hotel development. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff claimed damages for the loss of the chance to build a hotel on land at 11 Pitt Street, Sydney. The defendant was the registered owner of the land, and the plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached a contract by failing to deliver vacant possession of the property by a specified date.

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff could adduce reply evidence that was not foreshadowed in their evidence in chief, and whether they were entitled to recover costs incurred in preparing that evidence. The plaintiff's evidence in chief was based on a hotel design considered at the time of the alleged breach of contract. The defendant served evidence pointing out problems with that design and an alternate design conceived by the defendant. The plaintiff reply evidence included a further design said to meet the issues identified by the defendant. The court considered principles established in previous cases regarding the scope of evidence in reply and the circumstances in which a party may adduce such evidence.

The court held that the reply evidence was permissible as it did not go beyond the scope of the evidence in chief and was relevant to the issues in the case. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs incurred in preparing the reply evidence, as the defendant had not objected to the evidence in a timely manner. The court noted that the case involved a claim of $100 million, and no trial date had been set. The plaintiff was amenable to the defendant putting on further evidence in respect of the further design. The court made case management directions to facilitate the progress of the case.

No final orders were made in this summary as the case was still in the early stages of litigation, and the court made directions for the further management of the case.