Federal Court of Australia
supament no, ..|12 / 715
co f(s) ) sotvecseosevevencel ssesessesers NEW S_ DISTRI Y No. NG 3072 of 1995 GENE ON BETWEEN: IREZON PRO Cc SERVICES PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: -H. GIBSO Respondent
JULY 1995
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LOCKHART J.
This is an application to set aside a statutory demand dated 30 January 1995. The demand was issued by D.H. Gibson Pty Limited (Gibson) against Firezone Protection Services Pty Limited (Firezone) claiming the amount of $3794.95 which is said to be the amount owing by Firezone to Gibson pursuant to
a contract between the parties.
The origin of the matter is that in about August 1993, Firezone tendered for the contract for fire control installations as part of a refurbishment programme of the Grace Bros building at Westpoint shopping centre, Blacktown.
Gibson was the head contractor for the refurbishment.
Firezone's tender was accepted on 15 November 1993 by way of a confirmation order of that date, and the acceptance of that tender was shortly thereafter confirmed by Gibson to
Firezone. A contract was prepared and signed by Gibson and
sent to Firezone for execution but it was not in fact
executed.
Firezone carried out works on the site at Blacktown, the works including fire sprinkler alterations, relocation of fire extinguishers, supply and installation of metal cabinets for fire hose reels and alterations to fire hydrants and hose
reels.
It is part of Firezone's case that during the course of the work certain adjustments were made to specifications which resulted in an increase in the contract price from $23,200 to $37,542. PFirezone's case is that the work was carried out by
it between February and August of last year.
Dispute has arisen between the parties as to certain matters relating to Firezone's performance of its work with Gibson. Gibson claims that Firezone in effect walked off the job, putting Gibson in the position of having to obtain a third party to complete the work at the cost to Gibson of some $9381.60. Gibson also claims that Firezone owes it another $917 being damage allegedly caused by Firezone during the installation of sprinklers and fire hoses. Firezone claims
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate