Dante De Grazia trading as All Sydney Building Services v Nicholas Solomon & Ors [2010] NSWSC 322

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Dante De Grazia trading as All Sydney Building Services v Nicholas Solomon & Ors [2010] NSWSC 322

HEARING DATE(S) : 15/02/10, 18/02/10, 19/02/10, 22/02/10 - 26/02/10, 1/03/10 - 5/03/10, 8/03/10, 10/03/10 - 12/03/10

JUDGMENT DATE : 28 April 2010

JURISDICTION : Equity Division Technology and Construction List

JUDGMENT OF : Einstein J

DECISION : The parties are to submit short minutes of order.

CATCHWORDS : CONTRACTS - Building, engineering and related contracts - The Contract - Claim by builder for variations and delay costs - Whether Court can adjust date for practical completion under contract - Whether architect/proprietors estopped from pleading that that builder's claims were not made in compliance with the relevant contractual procedures and therefore must fail - The principle in Liebe v Molloy - Whether the plaintiff builder's claims for variations and delays made out on the evidence - Relevant principles where the architects are simultaneously the proprietors - Whether architect had duty to act impartially - Whether this duty breached - Performance of work - Whether it is possible to assess delay where construction programming has not occurred - Whether the expert evidence relied upon by the parties should be accepted - Cross-claim by defendants against builder for defective work - PROCEDURE - Courts and judges generally - Courts - Relevant principles for making a finding of fraudulent conduct - Whether allegation of fraudulent conduct made out - TRADE AND COMMERCE - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and related legislation - Consumer protection - Misleading or deceptive conduct or false representations - Whether brochure produced by cross-defendants was misleading or deceptive - Whether cross-claimants proved reliance on particular representations - Whether causation shown in cross-claim - Whether relevant limitation period had expired - Whether evidence showed that cross-defendants' product was not fit for purpose.