Tryhaz v FielderFielder v Tryhaz [2005] NSWSC 906

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Tryhaz v FielderFielder v Tryhaz [2005] NSWSC 906

HEARING DATE(S) : 22/08/2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 9 September 2005

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Macready at 1

CATCHWORDS : Building and Construction. Acceptance of report of a Referee under Part 72 of the Supreme Court Rules. Whether point should have been taken before Referee. Whether any error disclosed. Report adopted.

Tryhaz Pty Limited v Fielder Engineers Pty Ltd Fielder Engineers Pty Limited v Tryhaz Pty Limited and anor PARTIES :

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 55012 of 2003; 55016 of 2003

F. Corsaro SC & S.E. Torrington for Fielders COUNSEL : J. Anderson for Tryhaz R.J.H. Darke SC & G.K.J. Rich for Multiplex

Deacons for Fielders SOLICITORS : Gibson Howlin for Tryhaz Sparke Helmore for Multiplex Limited

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION LIST

Associate Justice Macready

Friday 9 September 2005

55012 of 2003 Tryhaz Pty Limited v Fielder Engineers Pty Ltd 55016 of 2003 Fielder Engineers Pty Ltd v Tryhaz Pty Ltd and Mark Robert Steele JUDGMENT 1 His Honour: This case concerns the adoption of a referee's report which dealt with a dispute concerning the construction of the wash barrier element of the marine and infrastructure works undertaken as part of the redevelopment of wharves 9 and 10, 7-11 Sussex Street, Sydney (King Street Wharf works). The scope of the marine works undertaken in the development included provision for STA ferry and commercial vessel berths and a boardwalk along the entire wharf face of berths 9 and 10. The wash wall extends some distance from the quay face and was intended to prevent any disturbance of the berths from the wave wash generated by port activities, and in particular by tug vessels. 2 The Referee, Mr P.R. Callaghan SC made his report to the Court on 4 July 2005. The parties are at issue on three matters arising out of his report, namely, interest, the finding that GST was payable on the damages awarded and whether or not the damages should include costs relating to painting rather than costs associated with cathodic protection of the structure.