NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 54 NSWLR 503
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : State of New South Wales & 3 Ors v Banabelle Electrical Pty Limited, Banabelle Electrical Pty Limited v State of New South Wales & 3 Ors, State of New South Wales & 2 Ors v Fugen Holdings Pty Limited, Fugen Holdings Pty Limited v State of New South Wales & 2 Ors, State of New South Wales & Ors v Automatic Fire Protection Design Pty Limited, Automatic Fire Protection Design Pty Limited v State of New South Wales & Ors [2002] NSWSC 178 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 55036/01; 55030/01; 55037/01; 55031/01; 55040/01; 55034/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 11/03/02, 12/03/02, JUDGMENT DATE : 22 March 2002
State of New South Wales Walter Construction Group Limited Mr Stephen Tamone PARTIES : Mr Douglas Sutherland Banabelle Electrical Pty Limited Fugen Holdings Pty Limited Automatic Fire Protection Design Pty Limited JUDGMENT OF : Einstein J
Mr MA Pembroke SC, Mr P Liney, Ms T Catanzariti (State of New South Wales, Walter Construction Group Pty Limited, Mr S Tamone, Mr D Sutherland) COUNSEL : Mr M Rudge SC, Mr S Goldstein (Banabelle Electrical Pty Limited and Fugen Holdings Pty Limited) Mr G Sirtes (Automatic Fire Protection Design Pty Limited Mallesons Stephen Jaques (State of New South Wales, Walter Construction Group Pty Limited, Mr S Tamone, Mr D Sutherland) SOLICITORS : Crisp & Associates (Banabelle Electrical Pty Limted and Fugen Holdings Pty Limited) Luchetti & Co (Automatic Fire Protection Design Pty Limited) CATCHWORDS : Contracts - Construction of terms - Contracts upheld where possible - Severance - Expert determination clause - Provision in clause stated that an expert would be a person agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, a person nominated by the person prescribed in the Annexure - No person prescribed in the Annexure - Whether clause void for uncertainty - Whether part of the provision after the disjunctive 'or' could be severed, leaving an implication that the parties had a duty to cooperate in nominating an expert - Implied terms - Terms implied in fact - Terms implied in law - Terms implied to give effect to the presumed intention of the parties - Terms implied from a prior course of dealing - Terms implied where the principle terms are settled but necessary subsidiary terms are absent - Duty to co-operate Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 (NSW) LEGISLATION CITED : Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Aiton Australia Pty Ltd v Transfield Pty Ltd (1999) 153 FLR 236 Alcatel Australia Ltd v Scarcella (1998) 44 NSWLR 349 Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (1977) 139 CLR 54 Beaton v McDivitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162 Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 15 NSWLR 130 Booker Industries Pty Ltd v Wilson Parking (Qld) Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 600 BP Refinery (Westernport Port) Pty Ltd v President, Councillors and Ratepayers of the Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 187 Butt v M'Donald (1896) 7 QLJ 68 Butts v O'Dwyer (1952) 87 CLR 267 Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 185 CLR 410 Caltex Oil (Aust.) Pty Ltd v Alderton (1964) 81 W.N. (Pt 1) (NSW) 297 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Carlton and United Breweries Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 468 Coal Cliff Collieries v Sijehama Pty Ltd (1991) 24 NSWLR 1 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 Con Kallergis Pty Limited v Calshonie Pty Limited (1998) 14 BCL 201 Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226 David Jones Ltd v Lunn (1969) 91 W.N. (NSW) 468 E.J.R Lovelock Limited v Exportles (1968) 1 Lloyd's Rep 163 Electronic Industries Ltd v David Jones Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 288 Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420 Hamlyn & Co v Wood & Co [1891] 2 QB 488 Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association [1969] 2 AC 31 Heimann v The Commonwealth (1938) 38 S.R. (NSW) 691 Hide & Skin Trading Pty Ltd v Oceanic Meat Traders Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 310 Hillas & Co. Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932] All E.R. Rep 494 Himbleton Pty Ltd v Kumagai (NSW) Pty Ltd (1991) 29 NSWLR 44 CASES CITED : Hooper Bailie Associated v Natcom Group (1992) 28 NSWLR 194 Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41 Hughes Bros Pty Ltd v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney (1993) 31 NSWLR 91 Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd v Burger King Corporation [1999] NSWSC 1029 Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239 Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] AC 108 McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 125 Mackay v Dick (1881) 6 App Cas 251 Marshall v The Colonial Bank of Australasia (1904) 1 CLR 632 Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571 Moorhouse v Angus & Robertson (No 1) Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 700 Nicolene LD v Simmonds [1953] 1 QB 543 New South Wales Cancer Council v Sarfaty (1992) 28 NSWLR 68 Putsman v Taylor (1927) 1 KB 637 Queensland Electricity Generating Board v New Hope Collieries Pty Ltd [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep 205 Racecourse Betting Control Board v Secretary for Air [1944] Ch 114 Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 596 Shell UK Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 1187 Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 359 Shirlaw v Southern Foundaries (1926) Ltd [1939] 2 KB 206 State Bank of NSW v Chia (2001) 50 NSWLR 587 Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton [1983] 1 AC 444 The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64 Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW) Ltd (1938) 38 S.R. (NSW) 632 Trans-Pacific Insurance Co (Australia) Ltd v Grand Union Insurance Co Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 675 Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (1992) 27 NSWLR 326 United States Surgical Cooperation v Hospital Products International Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 766 Update Constructions Pty Ltd v Rozelle Child Care Centre Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 251 DECISION : The parties are to bring in short minutes of order providing for an affirmative answer to the separate question. Costs may be argued.
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