Valmont Interiors Pty Limited v Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Limited

[2020] NSWDC 395

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Valmont Interiors Pty Limited v Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Limited [2020] NSWDC 395

Hearing dates:

20-24 and 29 July 2020

Date of orders:

27 August 2020

Decision date:

27 August 2020

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Smith SC, DCJ

Decision:

The orders of the Court are:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $130,973.00.

2. Judgment for the defendant on the cross claim in the amount of $235,611.29.

3. The plaintiff to pay 50% of the defendant’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Catchwords:

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Construction contract – Completion – delay damages – scope of work – defects

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 90(2)(b)

Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1966 (Cth), reg 2.03(4)

Cases Cited:

Agricultural & Rural Finance Pty Ltd v Gardiner (2008) 238 CLR 570

AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170

Andrews v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205

Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613

Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Plessnig (1989) 166 CLR 131

Liebe v Molloy (1906) 4 CLR 347

Lissenden v CAV Bosch Ltd [1940] AC 412

Paciocco v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525

Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd (1999) 161 ALR 458

Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v DDI Group Pty Ltd (2017) 95 NSWLR 82

Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 224 CLR 656

Tabcorp Holdings v Bowen Investments (2009) 236 CLR 272

Update Constructions Pty Ltd v Rozelle Child Care Centre Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 251

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Valmont Interiors Pty Limited (ACN 117 035 864)
- Plaintiff / Cross Defendant
Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Limited (ACN 084 424 037)
- Defendant / Cross Claimant

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Dawson and Mr D Elliott - Plaintiff
Mr M Klooster - Defendant
Solicitors:
EMK Counsel Co – Plaintiff
Madison Marcus Law Firm – Defendant

File Number(s):

2017/184944

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. In January 2016 the defendant (Armani) engaged the plaintiff (Valmont) to fit out its retail store at Sydney International Airport. There was some urgency about the works and instructions about it were updated after the contract was entered into. The plaintiff claims that it was asked to perform and did perform work outside the scope of the contract, and has not been paid for that work. It also claims that the defendant has not paid it the final instalment of the contract price. The defendant claims that certain of the works were defective and that it lost money because of the plaintiff’s delay in completing the work.

2. In order to understand these issues it is first necessary to set out a little of the factual background to the disputes between the parties.

Background facts

3. The defendant needs no introduction. It is the Australian presence of a world-wide fashion house based in Milan, Italy. Like a number of its competitors, it has a number of levels to…