BuildLaw Issue 38 December 2019 | Page 9

The parties go to Court
QRS wanted payment for the work it had completed and issued proceedings in Court. The McIntyres issued a defence and a counterclaim.
In 2013, the Council brought proceedings in the ERD Court due to the construction of the verandah being different to the council approval. In early 2014, the Court ordered for the demolition of the verandah. Before that occurred, the McIntyres made other alterations to their home that required the removal of at least part of the verandah. Each party then sought the legal costs of the other in relation to the ERD Court proceedings.
The District Court decision
The District Court proceedings1 went to trial in November 2015. In June 2017, the Judge delivered her verdict, finding in favour of QRS. The Judge found that the parties had agreed for the construction of two separate verandahs, with an intention to further develop and vary the design by enclosing the walls of the verandah as the work proceeded.
The Judge found QRS was not licenced to construct an enclosed verandah. The absence of the licence precluded it from recovering the contract sum, but an alternative claim in quantum merit was granted. QRS was entitled to the sum of $37,360 but the cost of rectifying defects in the sum of $9,457 reduced that entitlement to $27,903, plus interest from the date of completion of the verandahs.
The Judge found the McIntyres should pay all of the costs of QRS in the ERD Court, including the costs it had been required to pay to the Council, on the basis that they had encouraged the Council to issue proceedings.
The appeal to the Full Court
The McIntyre’s appealed to the Full Court2. The Full Court unanimously upheld the appeal. The Court reiterated the importance of the written Contract and the need, in determining any dispute, to interpret the documents that form the contract. It is the content of those documents, viewed objectively, that determines what the parties have agreed.
The Court said that the contract was clear in stating that the verandah was to be a single connected construction of the two verandahs and was to be fully enclosed.