| Caltex Australia
Petroleum Pty Ltd v Troost (NSWCA) – guarantee and indemnity – respondent bound by clauses constituting
“Guarantee and Indemnity by Directors” |
| Samsung C & T
Corporation v Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd (WASC) – contractor
granted injunction for delivery to it of construction materials retained by
subcontractor |
| B & T
Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations Registrar (ACTCA) – building and
construction –order for rectification of defective or incomplete building work –
appeal dismissed |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Caltex
Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd v Troost
[2015] NSWCA 64
Court of Appeal of New South Wales
Meagher, Barrett & Emmett JJA
Guarantee and indemnity - company indebted
to Caltex - Caltex claimed respondent liable to pay amount owing to company by reason
of guarantee and indemnity signed by him - Caltex sued respondent for balance
owed by company - loan application form called “Guarantee and Indemnity by
Directors” divided into two columns with two signature blocks - respondent
signed only one signature block - trial judge found respondent’s liability
under guarantee clause discharged by variation in terms and conditions and that
respondent never bound by indemnity clause because he had not signed indemnity in
right-hand column - Caltex contended trial judge ought to have found respondent
bound by indemnity clause - Pt 2K.2 Corporations
Act 2001 (Cth) - whether indemnity clause separate from guarantee clause - held:
author of documentation intended guarantee and indemnity section create only
one obligation for any director who signed that section - trial judge erred in
concluding respondent not bound by clauses constituting “Guarantee and
Indemnity by Directors” - contentions
advanced on respondent’s behalf rejected - appeal allowed.
Caltex
|
Samsung
C & T Corporation v Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 83
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Edelman J
Injunction – plaintiff contractor sought
urgent interlocutory injunction requiring defendant to deliver up construction
materials it needed to performance of duties as principal on mining project – contract
materials retained by subcontractor pending payment of claim for work done - serious
question to be tried – strength of plaintiff’s case that it owned materials – prejudice
– balance of convenience - held: plaintiff had a very strong case that title to
construction materials had passed to it – respondent’s case very weak – balance
of convenience strongly favoured grant of injunction – injunction granted.
Samsung
|
B
& T Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd v Construction Occupations Registrar [2015] ACTCA 7
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital
Territory
Murrell CJ, Gilmour J & Cowdroy AJ
Building and construction – ACT Civil and
Administrative Tribunal affirmed registrar’s decision to issue a rectification
order to appellant under Pt 4 Construction
Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 (ACT) – rectification order directed appellant
to undertake rectification works to building – primary judge dismissed
appellant’s appeal – Pt 4, ss4, 16, 31, 33A, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 55, 117 &
121 Construction Occupations (Licensing)
Act 2004 (ACT) – held (by majority): Court did not wrongly assume there was
evidence of loss and damage under s36(1)(a) - Court did not misunderstand proper
role of the public record, constituted by approved building plans – contention rejected
that primary judge erred in assuming owners corporation could represent
individual unit owners - no error in
approach of primary judge in understanding of nature of appeal – appeal dismissed.
B&T
|
