Daily Construction: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 View in browser
For optimised viewing please add "benchmark@benchmarkinc.com.au" to your safe senders list.
AR Conolly Company Lawyers.
A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.

Daily Construction

Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
CJM Bulk Timbers Pty Ltd v Artec Australia Pty Ltd (TASSC) - pleadings - joinder - equitable set-off - joinder granted - strike-out application dismissed - permission to amend defence
Diploma Construction (WA) Pty Ltd v Best Bar Pty Ltd [No 2] (WASC) - contract - price increase - no breach of contract for supply of steel reinforcing bar - claims dismissed - counter-claim allowed
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
CJM Bulk Timbers Pty Ltd v Artec Australia Pty Ltd [2015] TASSC 30
Supreme Court of Tasmania
Holt AsJ
Pleadings - joinder - equitable set-off - contract - sawlog entitlement - defendant sought order adding two companies as second and third defendants to proceedings - second and third defendants consented to joinder and if joinder occurred all three defendants would rely on single pleading of defence - defence would need to be amended if joinder occurred - plaintiff opposed joinder and amendment and sought to strike out part of existing defence which comprised claim to a set-off - equitable set-off - mutuality - rule that all persons interested in suit should be made parties - held: plaintiff’s strike-out application dismissed - defendant’s amendment application allowed - defendant’s joinder application allowed.
Diploma Construction (WA) Pty Ltd v Best Bar Pty Ltd [No 2] [2015] WASC 230
Supreme Court of Western Australia
Allanson J
Contract - plaintiff builder obtained steel reinforcing bar (rebar) for projects from defendant - defendant gave notice it was increasing price of rebar- plaintiff paid increased prices at least in part up to certain date - plaintiff gave notice to defendant  of termination of two contracts on ground defendant breached them - plaintiff sought declarations contracts were for fixed price, that it validly terminated contracts for defendant’s repudiation, and damages - whether parties contracted on terms and conditions advanced by plaintiff which precluded increase in price during term of contract - whether to extent plaintiff paid increased prices it did so under duress - held: plaintiff failed to prove it contracted in terms alleged - claims for declarations, rescission and avoidance of contract, and for refund of overpayments failed - claim for duress also failed - plaintiff’s claim dismissed - counterclaim allowed.