Read the full judgment text of CON 12 of 1996 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT judgment was delivered on 21 February 1997 before the Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Construction Law — Sub-contracting — Implied terms — Site security and insurance — Liability for theft losses — Collateral agreement and consideration — Payment disputes — Arbitration — High Court judgment. The plaintiff was a domestic sub-contractor responsible for electrical works on a building project, with the defendant as the main contractor. Theft of materials occurred due to insufficient site security, for which the defendant was responsible and insured. The plaintiff replaced stolen goods at the defendant’s request and claimed payment for these additional works. The defendant partially paid but disputed the balance, asserting it was not liable for additional costs. The court held that the defendant assumed responsibility for site security and risk, created an obligation to pay for the replacement work, and that the advance payment was for these loss claims. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff lacked consideration given any pre-existing duty, construing the contract to allocate the theft risk to the defendant. Judgment was given to the plaintiff for the sums claimed, the defendant’s counterclaim dismissed, costs awarded to the plaintiff on the usual scale, and interest ordered from the date of judgment. Further argument on pre-judgment interest was reserved.
Legal issues: Whether the defendant was liable to pay for replacement and reinstallation costs for stolen goods · Whether the defendant’s payment of $250,000 was on account of original contract work or an advance for replacement costs · Whether there was valid consideration for the defendant’s promise to pay for re-doing the work
Outcome: Judgment for plaintiff for $171,859.30 and $444,320; defendant’s counterclaim dismissed