Wright v Lend Lease Building Pty Ltd; Intercon Engineering Pty Ltd v Lend Lease Building Pty Ltd

The case of *Wright v Lend Lease Building Pty Ltd; Intercon Engineering Pty Ltd v Lend Lease Building Pty Ltd* concerned a dispute arising from construction sub-contracts. The appellants, Wright and Intercon Engineering, were sub-contractors to Lend Lease Building Pty Ltd, the head contractor. The core of the disagreement related to the interpretation of the sub-contracts and their relationship with the head contract, particularly concerning the commercial purpose and potential for rectification or amendment of contractual terms to avoid absurdity. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sub-contracts should be construed by reference to the head contract, and whether the words of the sub-contracts could be supplied, admitted, or corrected to prevent a commercially absurd outcome. This involved determining the extent to which extrinsic evidence, including the head contract, could be used to interpret the sub-contractual obligations and whether the court possessed the power to alter the plain wording of the sub-contracts to achieve a more commercially sensible result.

The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the appeals. The reasoning focused on the principles of contractual interpretation, emphasizing that the plain wording of a contract generally prevails unless there is a clear indication otherwise or a compelling reason to depart from it. The court considered the commercial purpose of the contracts but found that the appellants had not established a sufficient basis to justify supplying, admitting, or correcting words within the sub-contracts to avoid perceived commercial absurdity. The court also refused leave for the appellants to amend their notices of appeal.