Ray Laurence Constructions Pty Ltd v Nolks - [2010] NTSC 37

Ray Laurence Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor v Nolks [2010] NTSC 37

PARTIES: RAY LAURENCE CONSTRUCTIONS
PTY LTD
(ACN 108 063 387)
AND:
CHARLES DICKMAN T/as RAY LAURENCE CONSTRUCTIONS
v
THORSTEN NOLKS
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY
EXERCISING TERRITORY
JURISDICTION
FILE NO: 152 of 2006 (20631733)
DELIVERED: 16 July 2010
HEARING DATES: 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 December 2009
JUDGMENT OF: SOUTHWOOD J
CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS – Building contract – scope of the work – contract documents – contract price – practical completion – builder’s entitlement to payment – counterclaim – defects – delay – loss of use of house
Clyde Contractors Pty Limited ‘trading as Clyde Constructions’ v Northern Beaches Developments Pty Limited [2001] QCA 314; Murphy Corporation v Ackuman Design & Development ‘Queensland’ Pty Limited unreported
Supreme Court of Queensland 19 December 1991; Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v
Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 79 ALJR 129; Walter Construction Group Ltd v
Walker Corporation Ltd [2001] NSWSC 283, applied
Inverugie Investments Limited v Hackett [1995] 3 All ER 841; Westwood v
Cordwell [1983] Qd R 276, referred to
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:

Plaintiffs: M Keith
Defendant: W Roper
Solicitors:

Plaintiffs: Minter Ellison
Defendant: De Silva Hebron
Judgment category classification: B

Judgment ID Number: Sou1007
Number of pages: 38
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Ray Laurence Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor v Nolks [2010] NTSC 37
No 152 of 2006 (20631733)
BETWEEN:
RAY LAURENCE CONSTRUCTIONS
PTY LTD
(ACN 108 063 387)
First Plaintiff

AND:
CHARLES DICKMAN T/as RAY LAURENCE CONSTRUCTIONS
Second Plaintiff

AND:
THORSTEN NOLKS
Defendant

CORAM: SOUTHWOOD J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 16 July 2010)

Introduction

This proceeding involves a building dispute between Mr Charles Dickman, the builder, and Mr Thorsten Nolks, the property owner, about the construction of a house at 385 Reedbeds Road, Darwin River during the second half of 2004.
Mr Dickman claims that the work he was required to undertake reached a stage of practical completion and that under cl 18 of the building contract he was entitled to be paid in full. He claims the sum of $52,438 which is made up as follows:

[4]

claimed, and Mr Nolks has counterclaimed for various defects in the work
and for breaches of contract. The extent of Mr Nolks’ counterclaim
decreased during the course of the hearing of the proceeding. Ultimately, he
did not press a number of claims pleaded in the Further Amended Defence to
Further Amended Statement of Claim and Set-off and Counterclaim filed on

Mr Nolks denies Mr Dickman is entitled to be paid the amounts he has duty. The extent of Mr Nolks’ claims are summarised in a document entitled, ‘Defendant’s Damages’, which was filed in court on 11 December 2009.

[5]

the following grounds. (1) The works undertaken by Mr Dickman did not
reach a stage of practical completion and, under the building contract, the
builder only became entitled to payment of his…

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 Ray Laurence Constructions Pty Ltd v Nolks 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: [2010] NTSC 37
Decision Date: 16 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ray Laurence Constructions Pty Ltd versus Nolks, the dispute arose between a builder and a homeowner concerning the terms of a building contract. The homeowner, Nolks, engaged Ray Laurence Constructions Pty Ltd to construct a house. Following the completion of the work, Nolks refused to pay the final amount due to the builder, claiming that there were defects and delays in the construction process that warranted a reduction in the contract price. The builder, in turn, initiated a counterclaim seeking the outstanding payment and damages for the homeowner's failure to pay.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the building contract, specifically the scope of the work, the contract price, and the builder's entitlement to payment upon practical completion. The court had to determine whether the defects and delays claimed by the homeowner were justified and whether they warranted a reduction in the contract price. Additionally, the court needed to consider the builder's counterclaim for the unpaid balance and any damages for the homeowner's non-payment.

The court examined the contract documents and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that while there were some defects and delays, they were not significant enough to justify a substantial reduction in the contract price. The court emphasised that the builder had fulfilled the primary obligations under the contract and had achieved practical completion. Consequently, the builder was entitled to the contract price less any minor adjustments for the identified defects. The court also dismissed the homeowner's counterclaim for loss of use of the house, as the builder had not breached the contract in a manner that would justify such a claim.

The court ordered that Ray Laurence Constructions Pty Ltd was entitled to the outstanding contract price, minus a minor adjustment for defects. The homeowner was directed to pay the amount due, and the builder's counterclaim for loss of use was dismissed.

Orders