Mohamed v Adrija Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2022] ACTSC 89

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Appeal
2. › CIVIL LAW
3. › Appeal from Magistrates Court
4. › whether error in finding building contract between owners and builder lawfully terminated by builder
5. › whether error in finding owners failed to notify builder of a change of address as required by the contract
6. › whether notice of breach sent by builder in accordance with the contract
7. › whether builder entitled to payment under agreed damages clause in contract
1. Contract
2. › BUILDING CONTRACT
3. › interpretation
4. › whether error in implied finding that builder’s notice of breach was valid
5. › whether subsequent termination by builder was lawful
6. › whether error in finding no agreement or acquiescence by builder to communicate by email rather than by post as required by the contract
7. › whether agreed damages clause in contract applied
1. Evidence
2. › HEARSAY
3. › whether evidence of verbal communication by the owners that they had changed address was properly excluded under hearsay rule

Citation[2022] ACTSC 89

CourtACTSC

JurisdictionAustralian Capital Territory

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.

Already have an account? Sign in