Reardon v Stokes Contractors Pty Limited - [2015] NSWSC 960

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Reardon v Stokes Contractors Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 960
Hearing dates: 11 May 2015
Date of orders: 17 July 2015
Decision date: 17 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1) Ground 1 is dismissed.
2) Leave to appeal Ground 2 is granted and that ground is upheld.
3) The order of the Magistrate directing the plaintiff to pay project management fees to the defendant is set aside.
4) The orders of the Magistrate are otherwise affirmed.
5) Each party is to bear its own costs of the proceedings in this Court.

Catchwords: APPEAL – appeal from Local Court to Supreme Court – identification of contracting parties – pleadings – procedural fairness – whether identity of contracting parties in evidence – real issues between parties - project management contract - leave to appeal mixed question of law and fact – quantum meruit
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Local Court Act 2007
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: Banque Commerciale SA (In Liquidation) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
Gould v Mount Oxide Mines Ltd (in liquidation) [1916] HCA 81; (1916) 22 CLR 490
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets [2007] NSWCA 206; 73 NSWLR 653
Maytom v Kennett [2014[ NSWSC 116
Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2004) 220 CLR 517
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Terence Adrian Reardon (Plaintiff)
Stokes Contractors Pty Limited (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Hassell (Plaintiff)
Ms J McDonald (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Bradley Allen Love Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Lesly Bewsher (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/191021
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

30 May 2014

Before:

Magistrate Bone

File Number(s):

2012/184379

Judgment

HER HONOUR: The plaintiff in these proceedings, Terence Reardon, appeals against a decision of the Queanbeyan Local Court handed down by Magistrate Bone on 30 May 2014.
In 2010, Terence and Leon Reardon, brothers and the principals of Nessfind Pty Ltd, owned approximately 115 hectares of land in the Southern Tablelands area of New South Wales, known as Wamboin. The company wished to subdivide the land into twenty rural residential blocks. The approval for the development from the relevant authority included a requirement that a pond be constructed on the property to provide water (for non-drinking purposes) to the blocks. The material which came from the construction of the pond was to be used to repair soil erosion on the land. A substantial amount of the work on the pond had to be completed by October 2010.
In June 2010, Terence Reardon contacted Nicholas Arthur Stokes, a civil engineer and principal of Stokes Contractors (the defendant in the present proceedings), regarding the work for the pond. Mr Stokes agreed to undertake the work and it commenced in late July 2010, continuing until August 2011. By this latter date, the Plaintiff had been paid over $150,000 for the work.
In the Local…

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 Reardon v Stokes Contractors Pty Limited 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: [2015] NSWSC 960
Decision Date: 17 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Reardon, appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales from a decision of the Local Court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Stokes Contractors Pty Limited, breached a contract for the construction of a shed on Reardon's property. The Local Court found in favour of Stokes and Reardon appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the Local Court's decision on the basis that there was no evidence of a contract between the parties, and that the court below had failed to give proper consideration to the issue of procedural fairness.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Local Court erred in finding that the parties had entered into a binding contract and, if so, whether that error was material to the outcome of the case. The Court was also required to consider whether the Local Court had afforded the parties procedural fairness in the conduct of the hearing.

The Court found that the Local Court had erred in finding that the parties had entered into a binding contract. The evidence showed that the parties had not agreed on all of the essential terms of the contract, and that the contract was therefore unenforceable. The Court also found that the Local Court had failed to afford the parties procedural fairness in the conduct of the hearing. The Court granted Reardon leave to appeal on the basis that the appeal involved a mixed question of law and fact. The Court held that the error in identifying the contracting parties was material to the outcome of the case, and that the appeal should therefore be allowed. The Court ordered that the appeal be remitted to the Local Court for a new hearing, with directions that the issue of procedural fairness be properly considered.

The Court further found that, in the event that the parties were found to have entered into a binding contract, Reardon was entitled to be compensated for the work done under the contract on a quantum meruit basis. The Court noted that the evidence showed that Reardon had performed substantial work on the project before the contract was terminated, and that Stokes had thereby benefitted from Reardon's labours. The Court held that Reardon was entitled to recover the reasonable value of that work from Stokes.

Orders