A builder's suspension of works in genuine belief of non-payment, even if ultimately found to be invalid, does not without more constitute repudiation of a building contract. The principal bears the onus of proving that work could have been done during periods of alleged inactivity. Where a building contract expressly excludes certain works (here, retaining walls), the principal does not have a reasonable expectation that the builder will volunteer information about the need for and cost of those excluded works, particularly where the principal has its own project manager and the need for such works is apparent from physical inspection of the site. A notice disputing an extension of time under a contractual regime must detail the reasons for the dispute, not merely assert that the work did not cause delay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.