Skilled Group Ltd v CSR Viridian Pty Ltd & Anor

Skilled Group Ltd sued CSR Viridian Pty Ltd and another party in relation to a dispute over unexecuted sub-contracts. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had entered into binding sub-contracts with them, which were implied from the conduct of the parties. The defendants denied the existence of the sub-contracts, and the dispute came before the court for resolution. The court was required to determine whether the conduct of the parties evidenced a concluded bargain and, if so, on what terms. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff was estopped from denying the existence of the sub-contracts and whether restitutionary quantum meruit was available.

The court examined the conduct of the parties and considered whether it evidenced a concluded bargain. The court applied the fourth class of Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 to determine whether the conduct of the parties evidenced a concluded bargain and on what terms. The court found that the conduct of the parties did evidence a concluded bargain, and the terms of the sub-contracts were implied from the conduct of the parties. The court also considered whether the plaintiff was estopped from denying the existence of the sub-contracts and whether restitutionary quantum meruit was available. The court found that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the existence of the sub-contracts and that restitutionary quantum meruit was not available.

The court held that the sub-contracts were binding and that the defendants were liable to pay the plaintiff for the work completed under the sub-contracts. The court found that the milestone dates for the progressive completion of the stages of the works were not essential terms and that the free acceptance of the benefit arose. The court also held that the final certificates issued by the superintendent under the General Conditions of AS2124 – 1992 as amended were conclusive evidence of the amount due for payment. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff the amount due under the sub-contracts, together with interest and costs.

In summary, the court found in favour of the plaintiff and held that the sub-contracts were binding and that the defendants were liable to pay the plaintiff for the work completed under the sub-contracts. The court also held that the milestone dates for the progressive completion of the stages of the works were not essential terms and that the free acceptance of the benefit arose. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff the amount due under the sub-contracts, together with interest and costs.