SCHREINER V. CANBERRA WHOLESALERS PTY. LIMITED

CaF 8/58.

W., M. Housrox, Govt. Print. Melb.

@)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ORIGINAL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at....... Brisbane...

'on 26th June, A958.

SCHREINER Ve

CANBERRA WHOLESALERS PTY, LIMITED

Appeal allowed. Order of the Supreme Court

of the Australian Capital Territory set aside. Remit suit to the Supreme Court:

(1) to assess the damages recoverable by the appellant by reason of the failure of the respondent to perform its obligations under the contract between the parties;

(2) to assess the amount payable to the respondent for materials supplied and work done under the contract; and

(3) to enter judgment for the appropriate party for the balance due.

Costs of the trial, including those already incurred, to abide the event. Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of

the appeal.

| CHRETNE

Ve

CANBERRA WHOLESALERS PTY. LIMITED.

JUDGMENT DIXON C.J.

- FULLAGAR J. TAYLOR J.

CANBERRA WHOLESALERS PTY. LIMITED

This is an appeal froma judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory by which at was adjudged that 'the respondent should recover from the appellant the sum of £4,900. Judgment for this sum was obtained 'by the respondent in proceedings in which, as plaintiff, it - sought damages from the appellant for the wrongful repudiation of a sub-contract by which it undertook to supply and erect for the appellant certain specified steel work necessary in the erection of the John Curtin School of Medical Research at Canberra.

By its statement of claim the respondent alleged that during the course of the work the appellant wrongfully terminated the contract whilst the appellant, in answer, denied the breach and alleged that, because of specified breaches on the part of the respondent, he became entitled to treat the contract as at an end. The breaches alleged dn the statement of defence raise issues concerning both the quality of the work performed under the sub-contract and delays in its execution. In relation to the latter complaint it was alleged "that the supply of materials and performance of work in aceordance with the defendant's requirements from time to time within the time specified by the defendant was a condition of the said contract" and, further, "that the plaintiff failed to supply and erect certain parts of the structural steel work agreed to be supplied and erected by the plaintiff pursuant to the said contract within the time specified by the defendant pursuant to the said contract".