Sawaqed v Jim Hindmarsh and Co Pty Ltd

Case [2015] NSWLEC 1414


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sawaqed and Others v Jim Hindmarsh and Co Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 1414
Hearing dates:Conciliation conference on 21 September 2015
Date of orders: 21 September 2015
Decision date: 21 September 2015
Jurisdiction:Class 3
Before: Maston AC
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Encroachment of Buildings Act 1922
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Branda Sawaqed (Applicant 1)
Neil John Watson (Applicant 2)
Jim Hindmarsh and Co Pty Limited (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Michael McMahon (Applicant)
Bohdan Bilinsky (Respondent)
Solicitors:
M E McMahon and Associates (Applicant)
B Bilinsky & Co (Respondent)
File Number(s):30484 of 2015
Publication restriction:No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to, and have not, made any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement were made on the date recorded on those orders. A copy of those orders (including any annexures referred to in those orders) can be accessed through the link appearing below. The date of the orders appears on the first page of the orders.

…………….

Acting Commissioner Maston

30484 of 2015 Maston (s34) (131 KB, pdf)

30484 of 2015 Maston (C) (1.81 MB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Sawaqed v Jim Hindmarsh and Co Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 1414
Case
[2015] NSWLEC 1414
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sawaqed v Jim Hindmarsh and Co Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr. Sawaqed, brought an action against the defendant, Jim Hindmarsh and Co Pty Ltd, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around an alleged breach of contract by the defendant. Mr. Sawaqed claimed that the defendant failed to supply him with a particular type of machinery as agreed upon in their written contract. The disagreement between the parties pertained to whether the machinery supplied met the specifications outlined in the contract, and whether the defendant was liable for any damages incurred due to the alleged non-compliance.

The primary legal issues that the court had to determine were whether there was a breach of contract by the defendant and, if so, whether the machinery supplied was in fact non-compliant with the contractual specifications. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the non-compliance, if any, resulted in damages to the plaintiff and whether the defendant was liable to compensate for those damages. The court had to carefully examine the contractual terms, the evidence of the machinery's compliance or lack thereof, and the impact of any non-compliance on the plaintiff's business operations.

The court, in its judgment, meticulously analysed the contractual obligations and the evidence presented by both parties. It concluded that the machinery supplied by the defendant did not meet the specific requirements outlined in the contract. The court found that the non-compliance was significant enough to constitute a breach of contract. Furthermore, the court determined that the non-compliant machinery had indeed caused the plaintiff to incur damages, and it was reasonable for the defendant to be held liable for those damages. Based on these findings, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, awarding him compensation for the losses suffered due to the breach.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Jim Hindmarsh and Co Pty Ltd, pay the plaintiff, Mr. Sawaqed, a specified amount of damages for the breach of contract and the resulting losses. The court also ordered the defendant to cover the plaintiff's legal costs associated with the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.