2025/00234952
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 22/8/25 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 468.6 KB) |
| 19/9/25 | Respondent | Notice of Contention (PDF, 50.4 KB) |
| 24/2/26 | Appellant | Submissions (PDF, 2.0 MB) |
| 24/2/26 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 1.0 MB) |
| 24/2/26 | Respondent | Submissions on Notice of Contention (PDF, 691.0 KB) |
| 24/2/26 | Appellant | Reply (PDF, 1.4 MB) |
| 24/2/26 | Appellant | Reply to Submissions on Notice of Contention (PDF, 913.8 KB) |
| 24/2/26 | Respondent | Reply to Submissions on Notice of Contention (PDF, 277.3 KB) |
CONTRACT – the Department of Defence (the Department) owned land in Moorebank, New South Wales (the Land), which it used as a supply and distribution centre – in 2003, the Department sold the land to a major bank with a ‘lease back’ (the Lease) – the Lease required that, by the expiration of the Lease, the Department would ‘remediate the Land to a standard suitable for on-going commercial / industrial use’ – the bank on-sold the land to the Trust Company Ltd (the Developer) – the Developer and the Department later renewed the Lease under the same terms – in 2015, the Department executed a ‘Deed of surrender of lease’ (the Deed) and vacated the site – the Deed obliged the Department to provide a site audit statement certifying that the land was suitable for commercial/industrial use, either unconditionally or subject to compliance with an environmental management plan (EMP) – this was done – from 2017 to 2019, in the course of undertaking works, the Developer’s demolition contractor encountered asbestos containing material – the Developer spent $20 million in dealing with these contaminated materials – at first instance, the primary issue was whether the Department breached the Lease and/or the Deed when vacating the site – the primary judge held that Developer’s claim failed – the primary judge found that the remediation obligation under the Lease was generally expressed and obliged the Department to remediate the site to a standard suitable for what the Moorebank site was already being used for, but not for any commercial/ industrial use, nor for development activities to enable the site to be used for any such use – the primary judge further held that Deed did not amend the remediation obligation but released the Department from any claim in respect of non-performance of that obligation, on the Department procuring the site audit statement – whether the primary judge erred in the construction of the Deed – whether the primary judge erred in the construction of the Lease – whether the primary judge out to have found that as a consequence that the appellant was entitled to damages in the sum of $3,238,840.
Last updated: