Legal Research
Cases
Wood Hall Ltd v Pipeline Authority

Wood Hall Ltd v Pipeline Authority

Link copied

Case Copied 24 May 1979 33 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Gibbs, Stephen, Mason and Murphy JJ.

WOOD HALL LTD. v. PIPELINE AUTHORITY

(1979) 141 CLR 443

24 May 1979

Building Contracts

Building Contracts—Pipeline construction—Security in lieu of cash and retention fund—Bank guarantee—Entitlement of owner to demand and be paid security moneys—Due and faithful performance of work.

Decisions

May 24.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Gibbs. I agree with them and the conclusion they support. (at p445)

2. I wish to add an observation on my own account. The description "guarantee" commercially applied to the bank documents in this case is, in my opinion, a complete misnomer. The relationship of the bank to the owner or to the contractor has, in my opinion, none of the elements of suretyship. The circumstance that the purpose of the cash deposit or its documentary substitute is as a security for the due performance of the contract or the contract work does not, in my opinion, involve either the Bank or the owner in any of the obligations or rights of suretyship. The presence of cl. 3, for example, in the deed of 11th June 1976, sensibly included as a precaution, does not, in my opinion, import any of those rights or obligations. The bank documents are really in the nature of an unconditional bond to pay money on demand up to a stated maximum amount, the resolutive condition of the bond, other than payment, being expressed, for example, in cl. 2 of the said deed. (at p445)

3. In my opinion, there is no basis whatever upon which the unconditional nature of the Bank's promise to pay on demand can be qualified by reference to the terms of the contract between the contractor and the owner. Equally, there is no basis on which the owner's unqualified right at any time to demand payment by the Bank can be qualified by reference to the terms or purpose of that contract. The alternative provided the builder by condition G4.2 of that contract to the immediate deposit of cash is intended to place the owner in a position at any time to obtain such a deposit, i.e. a cash deposit of the stated amount, by a payment of that amount by a bank under a document which binds the bank unconditionally to make such a payment on demand. (at p445)

4. Apart from the application of the legal principles to which reference is made in my brother's reasons, every commercial reason exists for reaching the conclusion to which he has arrived. (at p445)

5. I would dismiss the appeal. (at p445)

GIBBS J. On 10th February 1977 the appellant, Wood Hall Ltd. ("the contractor") brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against The Pipeline Authority ("the Authority") and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd ("the Bank") seeking declarations and orders whose substantial purpose was to restrain…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wood Hall Ltd v Pipeline Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1979] HCA 21
Decision Date: 24 May 1979

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wood Hall Ltd (the plaintiff) brought proceedings against the Pipeline Authority (the defendant) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking damages for breach of contract. The dispute concerned the construction of a pipeline, with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had failed to provide necessary access to the pipeline route, thereby causing delays and increased costs. The plaintiff sought to recover these additional expenses as damages for breach of the contract.

The central legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the defendant had breached its contractual obligations by failing to provide timely access to the pipeline route. Specifically, the court had to determine if the contract imposed a positive obligation on the defendant to ensure the plaintiff's access, or if the defendant's obligations were limited to not actively preventing access. The court also considered the extent to which the plaintiff could recover damages for losses incurred due to delays, even if those delays were not solely attributable to the defendant's actions.

The High Court, in a majority decision, found that the contract did not impose a positive obligation on the defendant to ensure the plaintiff's access to the pipeline route. Instead, the court held that the defendant's obligation was to refrain from preventing the plaintiff from accessing the route. As the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had actively prevented access, there was no breach of contract. The court further clarified that for a claim of breach of an implied term of cooperation or good faith, a higher threshold of conduct would need to be met, requiring more than mere inaction or a failure to facilitate. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders