The University of Sydney v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd

In the matter of The University of Sydney versus Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, the case before the court involved a complex dispute concerning a building contract between the university and the construction company. The litigation pertained to issues of compliance with the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020, and the appropriateness of a proposed amendment to the Statement of Claim under the Technology and Construction List. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, a court with jurisdiction over significant commercial disputes. The university sought to amend its Statement of Claim to include new contentions about whether a sixth defendant had engaged in construction work, which was contested by the construction company.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the university's application to amend its Statement of Claim should be granted. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the proposed amendment was permissible under the relevant statutory provisions and whether it would cause undue delay or prejudice to the defendants. Another significant aspect of the case was the interpretation of the term “costs thrown away” within the context of costs assessment, and whether the court should consider the costs of and occasioned by the amendment when assessing costs.

The court determined that the application to amend the Statement of Claim should not be granted, as the proposed amendment would have caused significant delay and prejudice to the defendants. The court held that the term “costs thrown away” should be understood in its literal sense, meaning past costs that had been expended and were no longer recoverable. Furthermore, the court found that the costs of and occasioned by the amendment should be considered in the context of the overall costs assessment, as they were directly related to the unsuccessful application. This decision emphasised the importance of careful consideration of the implications of amendments to pleadings in construction disputes.

The final orders of the court were that the application to amend the Statement of Claim was dismissed, and the costs of the application were awarded against the university. The court also directed that the costs of and occasioned by the amendment be taken into account when assessing the overall costs of the proceeding.