Read the full judgment text of CON - 12 of 1995 on BabelCite. This HIGH COURT judgment was delivered on 21 February 1997 before Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Construction contract — implied terms — site security — subcontractor’s entitlement to compensation for additional work — insurance claims — contract construction — payment disputes. The defendant, main contractor, undertook responsibility for site security and insured against theft, which occurred resulting in plaintiff subcontractor incurring costs to replace stolen materials. Plaintiff claimed balance payments for these additional works and final account. Defendant disputed implied term regarding security and characterized payments differently. Court held that defendant assumed risk, resulting in an implied term that it would be responsible for site security and consequential losses. Plaintiff was entitled to additional payment for redoing work caused by theft, with $250,000 being an advance against loss claims, not part of original contract work. Plaintiff’s claim for balance of agreed amount and final account was upheld; counterclaim dismissed. Costs awarded to plaintiff on usual scale with interest to be determined further.
Legal issues: Implied term regarding site security · Whether the plaintiff was obliged to re-do stolen work without extra compensation · Whether the $250,000 payment was advance for loss claims or account for original works · Plaintiff's entitlement to payment for final account and balance of additional work
Outcome: Judgment for the plaintiff for $171,859.30 and $444,320; defendant's counterclaim dismissed.