Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
2025/00085250
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 12/5/2025 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 539.3 KB) |
| 14/7/2025 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 323.1 KB) |
| 15/8/2025 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 342.2 KB) |
| 14/8/2025 | Appellant | Submissions in Reply (PDF, 238.5 KB) |
| 18/8/2025 | Appellant | Certification of Suitability for Publication (PDF, 102.1 KB) |
| 18/8/2025 | Respondent | Certification of Suitability for Publication (PDF, 120.2 KB) |
BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION – the respondent engaged Hannas Contracting Service Pty Ltd (Hannas) to manage the development of land in Brookvale – Hannas engaged in a tender process to locate a suitable construction manager – the appellant, though Nicholas Bettar (the appellant’s general manager), submitted an expression of interest to Danny Hanna (Hannas’ CEO) on 8 June 2023 – from that date to mid-December 2023, Messrs Bettar and Hanna engaged in negotiations relating to the tender – on 27 October 2023, an employee of Hannas sent to Mr Bettar an email expressing Hannas’ intention to contract with the appellant - despite the absence of a formalised agreement, from 30 October 2023, the appellant began working full-time on the Brookvale site – on 21 December 2023, the appellant sent to Hannas a progress claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOPA), payable by the respondent – however, the primary judge found that no “construction contract” was entered into by the parties – the primary judge found that the absence of such a contract, or of any other pleaded arrangement, was fatal to the appellant’s claim for payment under the SOPA – the primary judge refused to find that the respondent was estopped from denying a contract – the primary judge also dismissed the payment claim on its merits – whether primary judge erred in finding that no contract or other arrangement was reached between the parties – whether the primary judge erred with respect to estoppel – whether primary judge erred in assessment of payment claim – whether primary judge erred with respect to costs.
Last updated: