Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd v Landtec Projects Corporation Pty Ltd [No 2]

In the case of Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd v Landtec Projects Corporation Pty Ltd [No 2], the parties were embroiled in a building and construction dispute, with the developer, Spiers Earthworks, as the plaintiff, and the contractor, Landtec Projects Corporation, as the defendant. The case revolved around the interpretation of a liquidated damages clause and an extension of time clause in their contract. The developer sought payment from the contractor for non-completion of works by the specified date, while the contractor counterclaimed. At first instance, the trial judge allowed part of the developer's claim and part of the contractor's counterclaim, resulting in a net flow of money in favour of the developer of approximately $24,000. The developer was ordered to pay the costs of the developer's claim, while no costs were awarded in respect of the contractor's counterclaim. Upon appeal, the contractor was found to be the successful party, with a net flow of money in their favour of approximately $123,000. The contractor argued that they should be awarded their costs, while the developer contended that the contractor's misconduct and unreasonable rejection of a settlement offer should result in the denial of costs to the contractor.

The court examined the relevant legal issues, including the interpretation of the liquidated damages clause, the extension of time clause, and the consequences of the contractor's failure to comply with the notice requirements. The court also considered the contractor's misconduct and unreasonable rejection of a settlement offer as grounds for denying costs to the contractor. The court ultimately decided that the contractor should be awarded their costs, as there was no clear authority that would support depriving the contractor of costs due to their conduct. The court found that the contractor's failure to comply with the notice requirements did not preclude them from being awarded an extension of time, as the superintendent's power to extend time could be exercised in the interests of both parties. The court also determined that the contractor's misconduct and unreasonable rejection of a settlement offer did not warrant the denial of costs.

In summary, the court held that the contractor was the successful party and awarded them their costs. The court found that the contractor's failure to comply with the notice requirements did not preclude them from being awarded an extension of time, and that their misconduct and unreasonable rejection of a settlement offer did not warrant the denial of costs. The court followed the decision in Peninsula Balmain Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 211, which held that a contractor's failure to make a claim within time precludes an extension of time, and the contractor remains liable for liquidated damages, even if the delay had been caused by events otherwise falling within the prevention principle.