Rowe v Bishop (No 2)

In the matter of Rowe v Bishop (No 2), the applicants sought to challenge the charges made by the respondents for work done under a contract for building works. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants argued that there was a fixed price contract in place and that the charges were excessive. The respondents maintained that the contract was a costs plus 10% plus GST agreement and that the charges were reasonable and in line with the terms of the contract.

The central legal issues revolved around the nature of the contract between the parties and the reasonableness of the charges for the work completed. The court had to determine whether there was a fixed price contract or a costs plus arrangement and whether the charges made by the respondents were fair and in accordance with the contract terms. Additionally, the court needed to address the quality of the work completed by the respondents and whether it complied with the planning authority's requirements.

The court found that there was no fixed price contract between the applicants and the respondents. Instead, the contractual arrangement was a costs plus 10% plus GST agreement for all work completed by the respondents. The court held that the respondents had undertaken and completed all work required by the applicants, including extras and variations. The charges made by the respondents were deemed reasonable, and the applicants' claims were dismissed. The court determined that the respondents were entitled to payment on their counterclaim, either in the sum of $8,576 or, alternatively, for an assessment on a quantum meruit basis in the sum of $13,918.50. The court noted that the report of Mr Effingham highlighted several matters requiring attention from the respondents to ensure the completed work met good engineering practice and the planning authority's requirements.

The court will hear the parties further, including on the question of costs and interest, to provide a final resolution to the dispute.