Zeman v Bollard
Case
•
[2015] NSWCATCD 13
•22 January 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Zeman v Bollard [2015] NSWCATCD 13
[2015] NSWCATCD 13
22 January 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Zeman v Bollard, the applicant, Zanja Zeman, sought to enforce a contractual right to terminate against the respondent, Craig Bollard, following a substantial breach of contract. The dispute arose from a contract for construction works, where the respondent allegedly failed to deliver conforming works within the stipulated time. The matter was heard and determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether a breach of contract occurs at the time non-conforming works are constructed, irrespective of whether the time for delivery of completed works has arisen. Additionally, the court had to consider the respondent's liability for breaches occurring prior to the abandonment of the contract.
The court found that a breach of contract can indeed occur at the time non-conforming works are constructed, even if the time for delivery has not yet arisen. This determination was based on the contractual terms and the established principle that the right to terminate for substantial breach accrues when the breach occurs. The court emphasised that the right to terminate is not contingent upon the passage of time or the occurrence of a specific event, such as the delivery date. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent remained liable for breaches that occurred prior to the abandonment of the contract. This liability was not extinguished by the applicant's decision to continue with the project and seek completion of the works.
The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $100,000.00 within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the court provided detailed instructions regarding the procedure for any application for costs, including deadlines for filing and serving written applications and responses. The parties were also directed to advise whether they consented to the issue of costs being dealt with on the papers or to make submissions as to why such an order should not be made pursuant to section 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013.
The court found that a breach of contract can indeed occur at the time non-conforming works are constructed, even if the time for delivery has not yet arisen. This determination was based on the contractual terms and the established principle that the right to terminate for substantial breach accrues when the breach occurs. The court emphasised that the right to terminate is not contingent upon the passage of time or the occurrence of a specific event, such as the delivery date. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent remained liable for breaches that occurred prior to the abandonment of the contract. This liability was not extinguished by the applicant's decision to continue with the project and seek completion of the works.
The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $100,000.00 within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the court provided detailed instructions regarding the procedure for any application for costs, including deadlines for filing and serving written applications and responses. The parties were also directed to advise whether they consented to the issue of costs being dealt with on the papers or to make submissions as to why such an order should not be made pursuant to section 50 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Repudiation & Termination
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Standing
-
Limitation Periods
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Zeman v Bollard [2015] NSWCATCD 13
Most Recent Citation
Llamas v Rockwall Constructions Pty Ltd; Rockwall Constructions Pty Ltd v Llamas [2019] NSWCATCD 75
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Brewarrina Shire Council v Beckhaus Civil Pty Ltd
[2005] NSWCA 248