Fletcher Construction Australia Limited v Lines MacFarlane & Marshall Pty Ltd

(2002) 6 VR 1; [2002] VSCA 189

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › New trial
3. › Errors of fact and reasoning by trial judge
4. › Whether errors of such magnitude as to vitiate conclusions
5. › Whether new trial should be ordered
1. Appeal
2. › Interference with trial judge's findings
3. › Nature of assessment of percentage of work completed
4. › Whether assessment involved exercise of discretion or evaluative judgment
5. › When appellate court may interfere
6. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Reasons for decision
3. › Scope and adequacy of reasons
4. › Duty to address principal submissions of losing party
5. › Duty to expose process of reasoning
6. › Whether limitations on trial process reduce duty to give reasons
7. › Effect of errors and inadequacy in reasons
1. Contract
2. › Building and construction contracts
3. › Design and construct contracts
4. › Architectural services
5. › Payment based on percentage of work completed
6. › Assessment of value of services completed

Quick Take

A trial judge's assessment of the percentage of work completed under a construction contract is an evaluative process dependent on findings of fact, not an exercise of discretion attracting the House v The King standard. Approximately 50 errors of fact and reasoning, combined with failure to address the losing party's principal submissions, warranted a new trial. Limitations on trial procedure agreed to by the parties do not excuse inadequate reasoning or relieve the judge of the duty to address the principal submissions of the losing party.