Daily Construction: Monday, 29 June 2015 View in browser
For optimised viewing please add "benchmark@benchmarkinc.com.au" to your safe senders list.

A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.

Daily Construction

Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
Harmonious Blend Building Corp v Keene (No 2) (VSC) - pleadings - trade and commerce - misleading or deceptive conduct - leave to file and serve amended statement of claim
The Avenues Tavern (Townsville) v K P Architects (QSC) - negligence - plaintiff’s claim apportionable claim for purposes of Pt2 Ch2 Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
Harmonious Blend Building Corp v Keene (No 2) [2015] VSC 276
Supreme Court of Victoria
Dixon J
Pleadings - trade and commerce - plaintiff claimed it suffered loss by defendants engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s18 Australian Consumer Law - plaintiff sought leave to amend further amended statement of claim in relation - s236(1) - damage to commercial reputation - loss of business - whether tenable claim - causal nexus between impugned conduct and deception of prospective purchasers - held: leave to amend statement of claim granted on basis that claim for general damages to commercial reputation and business was to remain but proposed claim for damages for lost profits may not be advanced.
The Avenues Tavern (Townsville) v K P Architects [2015] QSC 182
Supreme Court of Queensland
Douglas J
Negligence - plaintiff owned property on which tavern constructed - defendant architect designed tavern at least in part - original design placed tavern on power and sewerage easements - redesign required resulting in delay - plaintiff alleged delay caused it loss - defendant claimed acts and omissions of Council and town planner contributed to loss claimed - defendant sought declaration that plaintiff’s claim against defendant was an apportionable claim for purpose of Pt2 Ch2 Civil Liability Act 2003 - held: claim could be described as action arising from a breach of duty of care so there was substance to argument in support of declaration - practical consequence of declaration was that it would assist defendant at to decide whether or not to join another party or parties to proceedings as third party - there was utility in seeking declaration at this stage of proceedings - orders made that claim was apportionable claim.
The Avenues