Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd

CONTRACT - building engineering and related contracts - whether principal obliged to act reasonably in serving show cause notices - whether contractor failed to show reasonable cause why principal should not exercise a right under cl 44.4 to take the work remaining to be completed out of the hands of the contractor - principal's obligations when evaluating response of contractor to a show cause notice - whether principal obliged to act reasonably in serving notice to take the works out of the hands of the contractor - general conditions of contract AS 2124-1992, cl 44.

CONTRACT - building engineering and related contracts - principal serves notices to take the works out of the hands of the contractor - whether principal repudiated contract.

CONTRACT - building engineering and related contracts - principal takes the works out of the hands of the contractor - principal completes the project works to an enhanced scope of works - principal served on contractor a costs to complete certificate - whether cost to complete certified a cost of the works provided for under the contract - whether costs to complete certificate final and binding or reviewable for error - whether principal entitled to common law damages in addition to debt due under certificate - where no claim made for liquidated damages - entitlement of principal to delay damages at common law - general conditions of contract AS 2124-1992, cl 44.

EVIDENCE - admissibility - opinion evidence - exception under s 79 - requirements for admissibility - Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 55, 56, 76, 79.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - expert evidence taken by concurrent evidence sessions following joint conclaves - late objection to admissibility of expert evidence - conditional admission of evidence - ruling reserved to judgment - whether good reason to defer ruling - circumstances include pre-trial case management of large proceeding by trial judge directed to preparation of expert evidence by concurrent evidence sessions following joint conclaves - Civil Procedure Act 2010 ss 8, 9, 49 - Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceedings) Rules 2008 Order 3 Chapter II (Technology Engineering and Construction Cases) (TEC Rules) - Practice Note No. 2 of 2009 The Technology Engineering and Construction List.

1 By a contract dated 15 December 2004 between Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd (Dura) and Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd (Hue), Dura agreed to construct a four level apartment block of 29 apartments, with a basement car park in Lord Street, Richmond. The price for the works was $8.45 million and the contract incorporated general conditions of contract AS 2124-1992.

2 The principals of Dura and Hue, Messrs Khor and Chu, met in 2000 and became friends. In 2003, they identified the Lord Street site for a property development. Messrs Khor and Chu agreed that Dura would take an interest in the development and would be the builder. Contributed equity, about 30%, and borrowed funds financed the project, using a unit trust structure. There were 10,000 units in the trust. Dura took 2,000 units, Hue took 7,000 units, and China Phoenix, associated with Mr Chu, took 1,000 units. The trust was named SC Land Richmond. Hue, originally called SC Land Pty Ltd, is the trustee. Hue was the registered proprietor of the development site, a trust asset. Deferred until judgment in this proceeding are issues in dispute that arise out of this arrangement, the subject of a separate proceeding.

3 The contract was not put to tender, but negotiated between the parties. Aspects of these negotiations remain relevant in the dispute.

4 Dura commenced the project works on 28 October 2004 having agreed to achieve practical completion within 70 weeks. The superintendent extended the date for practical completion to 18 October 2006, on assessment of Dura's claims for extensions of time (EOT claims). Hue's architect, Jackson Clements Burrows (JCB) by Mr Anthony Chan, served as contract superintendent in the initial stages of the works.

5 By February 2006, the relations between the parties were under pressure. Hue was concerned about the rate of progress, the quality of the work, and the quantum of progress claims, particularly for some provisional sum items. During March 2006, Hue engaged Mr Luciano Pozzebon of Charter Keck Cramer and appointed him as the superintendent's representative. In April 2006, the superintendent issued a substantial defects list to Dura. Defects had been noted in the site meeting minutes. This marked a change in procedure. At this time, Mr Pozzebon was also seeking a satisfactory construction program for the project. He was concerned about sequencing and co-ordination of works activities, and assessment of progress and delay claims. Mr Pozzebon advised Hue that the date for practical completion was not achievable and the project appeared to be about six months behind schedule.

6 The period of February to April 2006 was a turning point in relations between the parties. Hue was entertaining serious, and grounded, concerns that Dura's contractual performance might not be satisfactory, and Dura did not allay these concerns. Dura contended at trial that Hue's 'intervention' in the works from April 2006, particularly the conduct of Mr Pozzebon, was inappropriate, almost obsessive, and it interfered with the orderly execution of the works.

7 In May 2006, in meetings with the unit holders in the SC Land Trust (which included Dura) the project financiers, St George Bank, suggested to Hue that the significant disparity between submitted progress claims and the assessments of those claims by its quantity surveyor required explanation. Mr Khor attended these meetings and Mr Chu heard directly from him what Mr Pozzebon was telling him - the project was behind schedule, unlikely to be completed until about February 2007.

8 The architects were monitoring the quality of the workmanship. Hue asked the consultants engaged on the project, such as Maurice Farrugia & Associates, the structural engineers, and MacCormack, the services engineers, to conduct additional inspections of the works. On 12 July 2006, Hue appointed Mr Pozzebon as superintendent. In August 2006, Hue engaged Wood & Grieve, electrical, hydraulic and mechanical engineers, to independently assess the works, and assist in identifying defects that required rectification. Hue appointed Dominic Borgia of DLB Project Management to assist the superintendent with a weekly report on the progress of the works. Mr Pozzebon informed Dura that Hue's serious ongoing concerns with Dura's quality control, poor workmanship, and sub-standard overall finish quality required the appointment of a superintendent's representative. Hue engaged Trent Alexander, of Tangent Pty Ltd trading as Liquid Lines, in that role, assisted by Ken Alexander and others from Liquid Lines.

9 The consequence was an increasing flow of paperwork in each direction: correspondence and requests for information (RFIs) were sent by Dura while Hue and its consultants served defects lists, Architect's Instructions (AIs) and Superintendent's Directions (SIs). There were progress claims, adjudications of progress claims under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic), EOT claims, variation requests, and extensive correspondence and reports. The dispute between Dura and Hue was expanding.

10 On 8 September 2006, Hue served four notices on Dura under cl 44.2 of the contract, alleging that Dura was in default by separate substantial breaches of the contract and requiring Dura to show cause in writing why Hue should not exercise a right under cl 44.4 (notice to show cause). The allegations of substantial breach made against Dura were that it had:

(a) failed to produce evidence of insurance cover as required by cl 21 of the contract;

(b) failed to proceed with the works with due expedition and without delay in breach of cl 33.1 of the contract (the expedition notice);

(c) failed to comply with a direction of the superintendent under cl 30.3 in breach of cl 23 of the contract (the directions notice); and

(d) failed to use the standard of materials or provide the standards of workmanship required by the contract in breach of cl 30.1 of the contract (the defects notice).

11 Dura responded to Hue on each of the notices, attempting to show cause. Hue accepted that due cause had been shown that Dura held insurance as required by the contract. However, Hue determined that Dura had not shown reasonable cause in respect of the other notices.

12 On 20 September 2006, Hue served Dura with a notice under cl 44.4 of the contract to take out of Dura's hands the whole of the works remaining to be completed. That evening, Hue locked Dura out. Interim injunctions brought temporary respite, and during this time the works continued, notably plasterboard sheeting installation. On 23 October 2006, Hue re-took, and has retained, possession of the site.

13 Immediately after taking over the works on 23 October 2006, Hue commenced a detailed audit of Dura's work to identify whether the works were compliant with the contract specifications and drawings. Between 26 October and 23 November 2006, Hue documented, with photographs, videos, reports from consultants, and a visual audit (meaning that plasterboard was not removed and underlying works were only inspected where openings allowed access) of Dura's works. Hue considered that, in particular, the plasterwork was poor and that, generally, there were significant defects in the structural, services, and mechanical works, and that the works may be in breach of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), particularly in relation to fire rating, threatening the issue of an occupancy permit.

14 In November 2006, Hue appointed a project manager, Mr Peter Clack and a new builder, Liquid Lines, to complete the project. Mr Pozzebon remained as superintendent and JCB as project architect and these men formed a project control group that monitored the project, and advised Hue about its completion. Hue also varied the design and specification of the building project.

15 In November and December 2006, Hue's project control group considered the need to open up the works to inspect the underlying work, but the extent of demolition required was not readily apparent. The plasterwork was considered substandard in every unit. Dura had not used the specified fixings, creating non-compliance with the specifications for flatness, squareness, and plumb. However, Hue's consultants had been raising concerns about the underlying works, for example, that the mechanical and electrical services were sub-standard, and that proper fire protection may not have been achieved. To rectify defective works behind plasterboard first required that the plasterboard be removed. Hue determined that demolition would be required to rectify the works to achieve the contractually specified standards.

16 In February 2007, incremental removal of plasterboard occurred, with consultants inspecting the works revealed. The consultants considered the works beneath the plasterboard to be systemically defective, and Hue decided to proceed with substantial demolition and stripping out of Dura's works.

17 The contract with Liquid Lines incorporated the drawings, as revised during the course of the project, from Dura's contract. It also incorporated a separate bundle of drawings detailing works (referred to as the enhancement works), which had not formed part of the scope of Dura's contract. The work of Liquid Lines included demolition and rectification of work done by Dura, completion work, and enhancement work.

18 The project reached practical completion on 22 January 2008. The superintendent then certified the costs of completion of the project, which formed the basis of the final accounting between Dura and Hue.

19 Numerous issues emerged in a complex dispute between the parties. To assist the court, the parties prepared four Scott Schedules that dealt with the following matters:

(a) defects in the works identified pre- 23 October 2006;

(b) defects in the works identified post- 23 October 2006;

(c) EOT claims; and

(d) disputed variations.

20 Dura contends that Hue repudiated the contract and it accepted that repudiation, terminating the contract. Dura claimed damages for breach of the contract, alternatively, on a quantum meruit, reserving its election as to the basis on which judgment be entered until the award of the court on each basis is known.

Total Loss and Damage (to 18 March 2010) plus contract interest continuing to accrue and compounding at 6 monthly intervals until judgement

21 Hue counterclaims that exercise of its contractual rights was justified. The contract continued to govern the relations between the parties. It was not terminated. Hue incurred the costs of completion of the project, after giving credit for enhancements over and above the contract works. Hue counterclaims for the debt due on the cl 44.6 certificate and, additionally, damages as follows -

22 For the reasons that follow, I have determined that Hue succeeds on its counterclaim on the superintendent's certificate and Dura's claim fails.

23 The issues that need to be determined include procedural issues, principally the admissibility of the opinions of various experts, as well as the substantive issues in the proceeding. Before proceeding to state my rulings and reasons on the procedural issues, I will set out the substantive issues on which the trial proceeded. In determining the dispute, I have not needed to consider all issues.

24 What are the requirements as to the form of a notice to show cause under cl 44 of the contract? Were either of the directions notice or the defects notice served on 11 September 2006 defective in form because -

(a) the directions notice and the defects notice each did not specify with sufficient particularity the alleged items of defective workmanship and/or materials to identify the substantial breach(es) about which Dura was required to show cause?

(b) the directions notice and the defects notice each were confusing, prolix, and obtuse?

(c) the directions notice included and relied on matters which did not constitute directions lawfully given under cl 30.3 of the contract?

(d) if the said notices were defective in form, did Dura, by responding to the notices, waive such defects?

25 Generally, was Hue entitled to act under cl 44.4 of the contract? Was it an implied term of the contract that Hue act reasonably in serving notices to show cause? What did Hue serve?

26 Did Hue fail to act reasonably because either of the directions notice or the defects notice was confusing, prolix, and obtuse? Did Hue fail to act reasonably in relation to the expedition notice because -

(a) the substantial breach alleged in the expedition notice was that Dura had failed to proceed with the works with due expedition and without delay to meet a date for practical completion of 18 October 2006; and

(b) Dura was entitled to a further extension of the date for practical completion beyond 18 October 2006.

27 In relation to the directions notice, as at 11 September 2006, had Dura failed to comply with any directions of the superintendent under cl 30.3?

28 If so, did such failure to comply constitute a substantial breach of the contract that entitled Hue to serve the second notice?

(a) Dura show reasonable cause why Hue should not exercise a right under cl 44.4 to take out of the hands of Dura the work remaining to be completed.

(b) Hue, in serving a notice under cl 44.4 taking the works out of the hands of Dura, act

• (i) wrongfully;
• (ii) in breach of cl 44.4; or
• (iii) reasonably (if it was required to so act)?

30 What is the content of the contractual requirement of cl 33 to proceed with the works with due expedition and without delay?

31 If relevant to considering the preceding issue, was Dura entitled, on or prior to 11 September 2006 or 20 September 2006 to claim for an extension of time in relation to the issues identified in Scott Schedule 2, and in particular:

(a) the excavation of rock and contaminated soil required for the construction of the basement of the apartments (EOT4);

(b) the revision of the unit type H layout (units 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 28) pursuant to AI 65 (Unit H Variation);

(c) modification of the structural engineering design to unit 29, pursuant to AI 108 (Unit 29 EOT);

(d) Notices of Delay from its electrical subcontractor, LEN Electrical, concerning electrical drawings the subject of Variation Quotation VQ 58;

(e) the Odourvac system;

(f) the failure to weatherproof unit 29, once removed from the contract works by AI 163; and

(g) any delay by the superintendent in responding to RFI-59 concerning disposal of condensate wastewater from the airconditioning units and the proposed location of any tundishes.

32 If yes to the preceding issue, had Dura validly claimed an extension of time in accordance with the contract for any, and if so which, of the events identified in Scott Schedule 2?

33 If yes to any claim identified in response to the preceding issue, had the superintendent properly determined the said claim under the contract?

34 In respect of claims that the Date for Practical Completion can be fairly extended beyond 18 October 2006 for the purposes of the expedition notice, are such claims defeated by Dura's -

(a) failure to dispute the superintendent's rejection of EOT 4;

(b) failure to make a claim that complied with cl 35.5 of the contract in respect of any ground for an EOT because it failed -

• (i) or refused to respond to requests for information from the superintendent;
• (ii) to show how it would be delayed in reaching practical completion; or
• (iii) to take all proper steps to prevent delay and minimise or avoid the consequences of delay;

(c) failure to make a claim in compliance with the contract for the Unit H variations;

(d) failure to claim any EOT in respect of notices of delay from its electrical subcontractor concerning electrical drawings the subject of VQ 58;

(e) failure to claim any EOT other than two claims for half day extensions in respect of Unit 29 issues; and,

(f) failure to dispute the superintendent's decision on any or all claimed EOTs, or otherwise to comply with the contractual dispute resolution process?

35 In relation to the expedition notice, as at 11 September 2006, in what way, if any, had Dura failed to proceed with the works with due expedition and without delay?

36 Did the facts, as found in answer to the preceding issue, constitute a substantial breach of the contract entitling Hue to serve the expedition notice?

37 If so, did Hue, in serving a notice under cl 44.4 taking the works out of the hand of Dura, act

(a) wrongfully;

(b) in breach of cl 44.4; or,

(c) reasonably (if it was required to so act)?

38 In relation to the defects notice, as at 11 September 2006, and having regard to Scott Schedule 1, in what way, if any, had Dura failed to use the standard of materials or provide the standards of workmanship, required by the contract?

39 If so, did the failures referred to in the defects notice, subject to any response by Dura, constitute a substantial breach of the contract entitling Hue to serve the defects notice.

(a) Dura fail to show reasonable cause why Hue should not exercise a right under cl 44.4 to take out of the hands of Dura the work remaining to be completed; and,

(b) Hue act reasonably in exercising its rights under cl 44.4 of the contract?

41 On 20 September 2006, did Hue undertake an evaluation of the responses of Dura to the notices to show cause?

42 Was it an implied term of the contract that Hue act reasonably in assessing whether Dura had shown cause in response to a notice and in exercising any right under cl 44.4 of the contract?

43 On 20 September 2006, given the responses of Dura to all of the notices to show cause, was Hue entitled to:

(a) conclude that Dura had failed to show cause; and,

(b) serve upon Dura a notice pursuant to cl 44.4 of the contract taking the uncompleted work out of Dura hands?

44 If Hue was not entitled to serve the cl 44 notice, did Dura validly terminate the contract by acceptance of Hue's repudiation?

45 On taking possession of the project site on or after 23 October 2006,

(a) having regard to Scott Schedule 4, at that date had Dura undertaken the works which it had undertaken in compliance with the contract; and,

(b) if no to (a), was it necessary to undertake demolition of part of the works to establish the extent of the non-compliance of the works undertaken by Dura with the contract requirements?

If yes to (b), did Hue wrongfully demolish part of, and if so what, works undertaken by Dura?

(a) the actions taken by Hue; and

(b) the costs incurred and now sought by Hue;

actions that Hue was entitled to take; and/or costs properly incurred?

47 In completing the project works after 23 October 2006, using a scope of the works that resulted in material enhancements, did Hue incur a cost to complete (and if so, to what value) over and above the cost of the works provided for under the contract?

48 If Hue was entitled to serve the cl 44 notice, what sum (if any) is due from Dura to Hue under cl 44.6 of the contract? Hue claims the sum of $4,457,308 that it alleges comprises the cost to rectify and complete the works (not including enhancements).

49 Does the superintendent's final certificate conclusively determine the sum due from Dura to Hue?

(a) Is Dura entitled to challenge the final certificate on the grounds that it is -

• (i) not prima facie evidence of its contents; and/or,
• (ii) not final and binding?

(b) Did the superintendent -

• (i) wrongly include the value of items of alleged defective works to the debit of Dura and/or incorrectly value such items of defective work;
• (ii) wrongly assess the value of the works set out in Dura's payment claim 26 dated 23 October 2006 as completed by Dura as at 23 October 2006; and
• (iii) wrongly assess the value of enhancements to the scope of works post October 2006, allowing $933,112.00 (ex GST), when he ought to have allowed $1,346,568 (ex GST)?

(a) Is the amount due to Hue limited to the sum ($4,457,308) certified by the final certificate under cl 44.6 of the contract?

(b) If not, what (if any) further loss and damage suffered by Hue because of Dura's breach(es) of the contract are recoverable. Hue claims a further $3,376,782.46 for damages for breach of contract comprising payments to unpaid Dura subcontractors, retentions paid to Dura subcontractors, additional financing costs and damages for breach of the scaffolding provisional cost warranty.

51 If Dura validly terminated the contract, is Dura only entitled to claim for the value of works undertaken by it pursuant to and in conformity with the contract, whether Dura claims its monetary entitlement as unpaid monies under the contract or as a quantum meruit?

52 If Dura validly terminated the contract, what loss and damage (if any) has Dura suffered?

(a) Is Dura entitled to claim $3,177,462.79, being:

• (i) the value of the contract works and approved variations completed as at the date of termination less progress payments plus GST and the value of bank guarantees cashed;
• (ii) disputed variations;
• (iii) the disputed scaffolding provisional sum;

(iv) alternatively, $2,950,186.29 on a quantum meruit; or,

(v) alternatively, restitution of $771,751.20 or $2,950,186.29

(b) Is Dura obliged to give credit for defective and/or non-compliant works as at 23 October 2006 and if so in what sum?

53 Is Dura entitled to any sum for variations, as set out in Scott Schedule 3, having regard to Dura's -

(a) lack of compliance with cl 40 of the contract;

(b) failure to allege, or establish, the matters under ss 37 or 38 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic); and,

(c) failure to issue a notice of dispute in relation to any or all variations now disputed, or otherwise comply with the contractual dispute resolution process?

54 Did Dura warrant to Hue that it calculated the scaffolding works provisional sum with reasonable care and skill (warranty)?

55 If Dura gave the warranty, had Dura calculated the scaffolding works provisional sum with reasonable care and skill?

56 If Dura had not calculated the scaffolding works provisional sum with reasonable care and skill, what loss and damage (if any) has Hue suffered because of the breach of warranty?

57 If Hue did not suffer loss and damage, is Hue entitled to nominal damages for the breach of warranty?

58 Did Dura represent to Hue that the scaffolding works provisional sum was a reasonable pre-estimate of the works (representation)?

59 If so, by making the representation, did Dura engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)?

60 If so, did Hue suffer loss or damage by Dura making the representation?

61 Is Dura able to make any claim on a quantum meruit or otherwise under restitution principles where there is a valid and subsisting contract?

62 If the preceding issue is answered in the affirmative, what sum is Dura entitled to claim on a quantum meruit or otherwise under restitution principles?

63 In the event that Dura is found (not) to have terminated the contract, what loss and damage (if any) has Hue suffered because of Dura's breaches of the contract (over and above any sum certified as owing by the superintendent under cl 44.6)? Hue claims $1,294,802.20 comprising additional consultant costs incurred in relation to the defective and non-conforming works and superintendence and additional financing costs. Is Hue entitled to set off such claims?

64 Is either Hue or Dura entitled to an order for release of the trust monies (or any part thereof) pursuant to s 47(3)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic)?

(a) Dura has validly terminated the contract by acceptance of a repudiation by Hue; and

(b) Dura is only entitled to claim for work undertaken in conformity with the contract (whether as monies due under the contract or as a quantum meruit); and

(c) the value of the work undertaken by Dura must be reduced by the cost of rectification incurred to bring the said works into conformity with the contract;

is the best evidence of the cost of rectification Mr Clack's evidence and, if so, is the proper calculation of Dura's claim as follows:

(Not including enhancements valued at $933,112 (excl GST))

66 Each side relied extensively on expert evidence. On the issues of delay, programming and want of due expedition, Dura sought to rely on the opinions of Mr John Browning of Accuform, and Hue relied on those of Mr Dave Andrews of Tracey Brunstrom and Hammond (TBH). As will later become clear, when programming issues became contentious during the course of the project, Mr Andrews had provided advice to Hue. Dura, for its part, took advice from, but did not call Mr Ashley Wikman of Knowles (Aust) Pty Ltd, preferring to tender evidence from Mr Browning. Hue objected to the admissibility of Mr Browning's evidence. Dura did not object to the admissibility of Mr Andrew's evidence in accordance with my directions, but in final address, counsel for Dura contended that one of Mr Andrews' reports was inadmissible. Hue also objected to the evidence of Mr Martin.

The application during trial to exclude expert evidence

67 Hue objected to the absence of evidence that Mr Browning had any specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience, and to Mr Martin's evidence as irrelevant. Hue took objection, well into the trial, as the time for taking the expert's concurrent evidence drew imminent. Then, over following days, both parties took objection to the admissibility of most of the evidence of 12 experts. I had, during pre-trial case management conferences, directed the parties to identify and resolve admissibility issues about expert evidence for good reason. By day 17 of the trial, conclaves had been held and joint reports, mostly, had been prepared. Without substantial delay and waste of resources, matters of form or of procedure that might resolve some admissibility issues were no longer possible.

68 On 25 October 2011 (day 17 of the trial), Hue gave notice of objections not just to Mr Browning and Mr Martin, but also to Messrs Shah, Vapp, Gairns, Lorich, Faifer and Barber. Dura gave notice of objections to Messrs Clack and Holman. Time was reserved, on day 19 of the trial, to deal with the objections before concurrent evidence sessions commenced. When Dura notified further objections, it added Messrs Atchison and Bonaldi, but not Mr Andrews, to its list.

69 I heard submissions about the evidence of Messrs Martin and Browning and ruled that Mr Martin's evidence was inadmissible. I deferred ruling on the admissibility of Mr Browning's evidence and taking submissions on the admissibility of the evidence of other experts until final address, instead making procedural directions and reserving the publication of the reasons for those directions to this judgment.

70 In Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar,[1] the High Court stated that a failure to demonstrate that an opinion expressed by a witness is based on the witness's specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience is a matter that goes to the admissibility of the evidence, not its weight. Generally, trial judges confronted with an objection to admissibility of evidence should rule upon that objection as soon as possible. However, I did not immediately rule the evidence of Mr Browning inadmissible. I made directions under s 49 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) as to how all objections to expert evidence would be resolved, which in the light of the objections now being taken to virtually all experts, left the parties on an equal footing. What I did not and will not do, is approach the issue of expert evidence conditionally admitted as a question of weight. I deferred the issue of admissibility but will now rule on the issue in respect of each witness. Only in respect of admitted evidence will I consider what weight is to be given to any expert opinion.

71 The majority in Dasreef thought it unsatisfactory that the litigants not know what evidence in support of a claim was admissible or what evidence the opposing party had to meet, if the trial judge did not rule on admissibility when challenged. In that case, the inadmissible evidence, taken by the trial judge on a voir dire, was used for purposes for which it was not admissible and for which it may be doubted that the plaintiff had sought to tender it.[2] The circumstances here differ from those in Dasreef, and there was good reason to defer the ruling in this case. Counsel for Hue was correct in observing that it is a rare case where a party feels obliged on day 17 of a case managed proceeding to make critical observations of so many of the opposing party's experts.

72 The process for and content of the objections taken raised interrelated issues of procedure and admissibility of the evidence, on which I heard argument not just during the trial but also during several case management conferences.

73 This proceeding is governed by Order 3 - Technology Engineering and Construction Cases, of Chapter II of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceedings) Rules 2008 (TEC Rules) and Practice Note No. 2 of 2009 The Technology Engineering and Construction List (TEC List). When allocated control of these proceedings for trial by the Judge in Charge,[3] I called a case management conference that was held on 4 November 2010. At that initial conference, I proposed expert conclaves and concurrent evidence. The parties had not then served all reports on which they intended to rely. At a further conference on 15 December 2010, I indicated in detail the procedure for expert conclaves and concurrent expert evidence that I required. The parties' legal advisers at that time recognised that there may be issues arising, for example, about the apparent qualifications of an expert, or the instructions given, and materials briefed, to an expert, or the form or content of the expert's reports that ought to be raised or resolved prior to any conclave between competing experts. These matters were to be postponed until the following August, after the time allowed by the court's directions for expert evidence to be exchanged had expired.

74 By the next case management conference in July 2011, both parties were assuring the court that the proceedings would be ready for trial on 3 October 2011 and all experts had been 'identified', although the process for preparation for expert concurrent evidence, joint conclaves being required, was delayed. I drew attention to the prospect of objections to matters such as expertise, instructions given, assumptions made, or the form of reports and the potential for such issues to affect preparation, procedures, or a fair trial. I directed notice, by 26 August 2011, of any objections to expert evidence. The parties suggested conducting the conclave process during September, with expert conclaves leading to joint reports completed before the trial started.

75 At the next case management conference on 29 August 2011, a want of attention to preparation was evident. Dura sought to amend its pleadings while Hue was explaining its delay in serving the statement of Mr Pozzebon. By this time, I had begun to appreciate that many experts had a long involvement with the dispute as adviser/consultants. The parties could not then deal with objections to expert reports. No expert conclaves had yet been organised. It appeared that organising the experts was married to the task of preparing Scott Schedules, which, in hindsight, was impractical in the available time. The parties assured me they would deal with grouping the experts and organising conclave sessions.

76 By the case management conference on 5 September 2011, the emerging issue was identifying the extent to which experts in the same discipline had received appropriate instructions and opined on like issues, permitting conclaves to occur. Late service of Mr Pozzebon's comprehensive statement placed Dura's advisers under additional stress. Dura contended that delay affected the preparation of the Scott Schedules and, in turn, the expert conclaves. In retrospect, I do not think that was the case at all. There was no interaction between the experts and the Scott Schedules at trial. The concerns about the Scott Schedules were illusory. There appeared to be a lack of application of resources to trial preparation sufficiently in advance of the trial, or insufficient resources being applied when the task is left to the last opportunity. It became clear that the party's advisers did not reach, or inform the court about, concluded views that expert evidence was objectionable until after the trial was running. By the time of the next case management conference, on 19 September 2011, some experts were apparently seeking to prepare reply statements requiring further investigation or instruction before completion. Although expert conclaves could not occur before the trial started, the opportunity remained while the court heard lay evidence about the project.

77 As the trial date loomed, other issues emerged. Dura foreshadowed serving further expert reports, from Mr Barber, in relation to services engineering issues, necessitated by late service of a report by Mr Holman. There were debates about fault. Mr Holman's firm, Wood & Grieve Pty Ltd, had contemporaneous involvement in the project with several discovered reports. Yet Freehills dated its instruction letter to Mr Holman after the time for service of expert reports had expired. Dura submitted that until the late service of Mr Holman's report it had no idea that Hue would call Mr Holman. Neither party's position seemed immune from criticism. Tactical skirmishing between solicitors over such issues may well fall foul of the overarching obligation to co-operate in the conduct of a civil proceeding under s 20 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). Ultimately, Messrs Barber and Holman worked co-operatively through the issues in a joint conclave and produced a joint report that effectively narrowed services engineering issues. At the case management conference, the parties informed me that the conclave process was 'underway'. Hue took no objection that Mr Browning was not appropriately qualified or that his reports were inadmissible under Part 3.3 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), although Hue did object that Mr Gairns was an inappropriate person to meet with Mr Andrews.

78 When the trial started, no expert conclave had taken place and the precise scope of the evidence in some expert disciplines was uncertain. Neither party had foreshadowed the objections to admissibility that were to come. On 6 October 2011, Messrs Vapp and Thomas met, compiling a joint report. On that same day, Messrs Vapp, Shah, Faifer, and Thomas met and prepared a joint report. Messrs Atchison, Bonaldi, Lorich, and Faifer met on 11 October 2011 and produced a joint report. On 12 October 2011, Messrs Andrews, Browning and Gairns met and produced a joint report. Messrs Barber and Holman met on 18 October and 3 November 2011, also producing a joint report.

Reasons for deferring ruling on the objections to experts

79 The litigants in these proceedings have received intensive case management, resulting in disclosure of the substance of evidence in chief, both lay and expert evidence, prior to trial. Joint conclaves between experts proceeded on the objectionable evidence. That occurred because the parties, despite the invitation of the court to deal with any objections prior to trial, each elected to defer contending that the other's expert evidence was inadmissible until during the trial. To the extent that the outcome is unsatisfactory in the sense discussed in Dasreef,[4] it was the choice of the parties. It did not result in use of the evidence for a purpose not intended by the tendering party, nor did it preclude the parties from understanding the basis on which expert opinion evidence was relevant to the issues in the proceeding. The evidence did not emerge on a voir dire during the trial.

80 Dura's counsel belatedly conceded that the evidence in chief of Mr Browning's qualifications was unacceptable. Dura had not sought to provide evidence of Mr Browning's qualifications at any earlier stage, or to call evidence from another programming expert. Mr Gairns, for example, although having participated in the programming conclave, was not called at trial. There was no application from Dura at any stage after the time permitted by pre-trial directions had passed for leave to supplement the expert evidence on this issue from other sources. As admissibility issues had been ignored in case management conferences prior to trial, any deficiency in the expert evidence arising from evidence being ruled inadmissible could be seen either as a matter of chosen risk for the tendering party or a matter of forensic tactics for the objecting party. Prior to trial, objections to admissibility may have been capable of cure without prejudice or unfairness. Neither party took that opportunity yet on day 19 of the trial, each party was moving to strike out the other's expert evidence.

81 With the trial running, several procedural issues became relevant. The parties might be held to the strategic decisions taken in trial preparation. Mr Browning and Mr Gairns had both participated in the programming conclave, with a joint report to be tendered in due course. That report now exists. Likewise, other groupings of experts met in conclaves. Joint reports from conclaves flowed from the initial, exchanged, reports stood without objection when the conclaves were scheduled and when the trial commenced. Properly interpreting the joint reports could depend, at least in part, on reference to the original objectionable report. The questions of prejudice or unfairness in the trial were wider than the issues arising about Mr Browning's evidence. Not only was the evidence of virtually every expert now under challenge, but the applications appeared likely to take considerable time, perhaps three days, possibly delaying the scheduled concurrent evidence sessions.

82 While one ground of objection in relation to Mr Browning was discrete, in the sense that it affected the whole of his evidence, with other experts, the objections concerned the application of the proper basis rules and the transparent reasoning rule. There was a prospect that striking out part of a report would inevitably lead to other considerations, such as applications to lead further evidence in chief or evidence from other witnesses or to adjourn the trial. The parties had agreed to broad time limitations, not a strict chess-clock system, to complete the trial. A substantial portion of hearing time had been consumed in dealing with the objections to Messrs Martin, Browning and Gairns. The question arose whether the just, efficient, timely and cost efficient resolution of this proceeding might be better served by dealing with objections to admissibility in final submissions.[5]

83 I concluded that this was the preferable course. First, in the context of the parties being substantially advanced in trial, having agreed to conduct the trial within time constraints and on the basis that the lay evidence on both sides had been taken and all that remained was the taking of the concurrent evidence of the experts followed by final submissions, the deferral of my ruling was not likely to lead to the unsatisfactory result evident in Dasreef. By case management, I intended to avoid the disruption to the trial by applications to lead further evidence in chief, call other witnesses, or to adjourn the trial, particularly where such applications might have led to delay, expense, and waste of court resources. Although Hue contended in final address that uncertainty remained about the scope of the expert evidence that it needed to address, Hue expressed no specific concern.

84 Second, the rules of evidence applied in trial proceedings are now stated in the Evidence Act. I bear in mind the general rule, identified by the High Court, that inadmissible evidence should be immediately rejected. In relation to evidence, a trial court's power to control its processes and conduct is not affected by the Evidence Act except as appears expressly or by necessary intendment.[6] The court is empowered to order and direct the procedures for and conduct of a trial, including in relation to evidence.[7] In so doing, the court is invited to further the overarching objective of the Civil Procedure Act by having regard to matters such as:[8]

(a) the just determination of the civil proceeding;

(c) the efficient conduct of the business of the court;

(d) the efficient use of judicial and administrative resources;

(f) the timely determination of the civil proceeding;

(g) dealing with a civil proceeding in a manner proportionate to -

(i) the complexity or importance of the issues in dispute; and

(ii) the amount in dispute.

(c) the degree of promptness with which the parties have conducted the proceeding, including the degree to which each party has been timely in undertaking interlocutory steps in relation to the proceeding;

(d) the degree to which any lack of promptness by a party in undertaking the proceeding has arisen from circumstances beyond the control of that party;

(e) the degree to which each person to whom the overarching obligations apply has complied with the overarching obligations in relation to the proceeding;

(f) any prejudice that may be suffered by a party as a consequence of any order proposed to be made or direction proposed to be given by the court.

85 The balance between case management considerations and the dictates of a fair trial is not always apparent. The court cannot lose sight of the fundamental requirement to conduct fairly a trial in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, but the parties to commercial litigation expect courts to determine disputes both quickly and fairly. For the reasons that I have stated, these considerations are apposite to the exercise of my discretion and favoured the deferral of taking submissions on the admissibility of expert evidence to final submissions and ruling on the applications in my judgment. In the end, the parties completed the trial in the agreed time. Had that not been achieved, the negative effects of delay and waste of court resources would have been considerable.

Objection to expert evidence - principles applying

86 I will first set out the principles that are relevant when considering the admissibility of expert opinion, commencing with the relevant parts of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and then rule on the admissibility of the evidence of each of the experts in turn.

87 Section 76 provides:

Evidence of an opinion is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact about the existence of which the opinion was expressed.

Section 79(1) provides an exception to that admissibility rule.

If a person has specialised knowledge based on the person's training, study or experience, the opinion rule does not apply to evidence of an opinion of that person that is wholly or substantially based on that knowledge.

In Dasreef,[9] the majority stated that when considering opinion evidence, admissibility is to be determined by application of the requirements of the Evidence Act rather than by any attempt to parse and analyse particular statements in decided cases divorced from the context in which those statements were made.[10] A two-stage inquiry is required. The first inquiry is why the evidence is relevant.[11] As the majority observed:

Section 76(1)[12] expresses the opinion rule in a way which assumes that evidence of an opinion is tendered "to prove the existence of a fact" .... the opinion rule is expressed as it is in order to direct attention to why the party tendering the evidence says it is relevant. More particularly, it directs attention to the finding, which the tendering party will ask the tribunal of fact to make. In considering the operation of s 79(1) it is thus necessary to identify why the evidence is relevant: why it is "evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding". That requires identification of the fact in issue that the party tendering the evidence asserts the opinion proves or assists in proving.

88 If relevance is established, at the second stage of the inquiry admissible evidence must satisfy two criteria. The witness who gives the evidence must have 'specialised knowledge based on the person's training, study, or experience'. The opinion expressed in evidence by the witness must be 'wholly or substantially based on that knowledge'. It is ordinarily the case, as Heydon JA (as his Honour then was) said in Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles,[13] that 'the expert's evidence must explain how the field of "specialised knowledge" in which the witness is expert by reason of "training, study or experience", and on which the opinion is "wholly or substantially based", applies to the facts assumed or observed so as to produce the opinion propounded'.

89 Judges and academic commentators have referred, perhaps loosely at times, to 'rules', notably the 'basis rule', for admissibility at common law drawn from the cases. Admissible expert opinion must demonstrate not just that the opinion, and the experts reasoning of it, has a proper basis in the witness' specialised knowledge, but also that the opinion, and reasoning, has a proper basis in assumed or observed facts. In the latter sense, the 'basis rule' can refer to three distinct requirements (or 'rules') for admissibility of an expert opinion. In Dasreef,[14] Heydon J identified, or allocated, convenient titles to these requirements. Firstly, the 'assumption identification' rule requires that the expert disclose the 'facts' and 'assumptions' which found the expert's opinion. Often called the 'basis rule' but more conveniently referred to as the 'proof of assumption' rule is the second requirement, that the 'facts' and 'assumptions' stated by the expert be proved before the opinion is admissible. Thirdly, the requirement is a statement of reasoning showing how the 'facts' and 'assumptions' related to the opinion stated so as to reveal that that opinion was based on the expert's expertise, which may be called the 'statement of reasoning' rule.

90 In Dasreef, the majority concluded that having regard to the expert's evidence of his training, study and experience, there was no footing on which the primary judge could conclude that an opinion expressed by the expert was wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge.[15] Thus, the evidence was inadmissible for non-compliance with the expertise basis rule. That conclusion disposed of the appeal. Other cases say more about the factual basis rule - the connection between an admissible opinion and the assumed or observed facts - that demonstrate the relevant considerations guiding the practical application of these 'rules'.

91 In HG v R,[16] Gleeson CJ, accepting that an expert's report may be based on assumed facts, stated:

An expert whose opinion is sought to be tendered should differentiate between the assumed facts upon which the opinion is based, and the opinion in question. .... the provisions of s 79 will often have the practical effect of emphasising the need for attention to requirements of form. By directing attention to whether an opinion is wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience, the section requires that the opinion is presented in a form which makes it possible to answer that question. [Footnotes omitted]

In Makita,[17] Heydon JA, following an extensive review of the authorities, stated:

... if evidence tendered as expert opinion evidence is to be admissible, it must be agreed or demonstrated that there is a field of 'specialised knowledge'; there must be an identified aspect of that field in which the witness demonstrates that by reason of specified training, study or experience, the witness has become an expert; the opinion proffered must be 'wholly or substantially based on the witness's expert knowledge'; so far as the opinion is based on facts 'observed' by the expert, they must be identified and admissibly proved by the expert, and so far as the opinion is based on 'assumed' or 'accepted' facts, they must be identified and proved in some other way; it must be established that the facts on which the opinion is based form a proper foundation for it; and the opinion of an expert requires demonstration or examination of the scientific or other intellectual basis of the conclusions reached: that is, the expert's evidence must explain how the field of 'specialised knowledge' in which the witness is expert by reason of 'training, study or experience', and on which the opinion is 'wholly or substantially based', applies to the facts assumed or observed so as to produce the opinion propounded. If all these matters are not made explicit, it is not possible to be sure whether the opinion is based wholly or substantially on the expert's specialised knowledge. If the court cannot be sure of that, the evidence is strictly speaking not admissible, and, so far as it is admissible, of diminished weight. And an attempt to make the basis of the opinion explicit may reveal that it is not based on specialised expert knowledge, but, to use Gleeson CJ's characterisation of the evidence in HG v R, on 'a combination of speculation, inference, personal and second-hand views as to the credibility of the complainant, and a process of reasoning which went well beyond the field of expertise'. [Footnotes omitted][18]

92 In ASIC v Rich & Ors,[19] the precise requirements of the 'basis' rule were in issue. Spigelman CJ concluded that Heydon JA's reasoning in Makita conforms to the statement of Gleeson CJ in HG. Gleeson CJ also stated that to be admissible expert opinion, the evidence must identify the factual basis that the expert was assuming to be true 'so that [the factual basis] could be measured against the evidence; and it would have required or invited demonstration or examination of the scientific basis of the conclusion'. Following an extensive analysis of the reasoning of Heydon JA in Makita, Spigelman CJ (with Giles and Ipp JJA agreeing) concluded:

... the starting point for Heydon JA's detailed analysis of the case law on admissibility does not suggest any focus on the true historical process by which the expert first formed the relevant opinion. The focus of attention - the 'prime duty' - is to ensure that the court, as the tribunal of fact, is placed in a position where it can examine and assess the evidence presented to it. That can occur without adopting the true factual basis approach**.** What Heydon JA identified as the expert's 'prime duty' is fully satisfied if the expert identifies the facts and reasoning process which he or she asserts justify the opinion. That is sufficient to enable the tribunal of fact to evaluate the opinions expressed.

More recently, in Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Limited,[20] this analysis was accepted.

93 In Dasreef, the respondent submitted that there was no 'basis rule' required by s 79, a contention that Heydon J rejected. Heydon J's analysis identifies that each of the 'rules'[21] exists, as a matter of authority at common law and correctly so as a matter of principle, and his Honour explains the function that the rule serves in establishing whether opinion evidence is admissible. Heydon J then turned to the contention that the three common law 'rules' were not taken up in s 79. His Honour observed that Gleeson CJ, in the passage that I have extracted above from HG, rested the continued existence of the assumption identification rule on an implication from the terms of s 79. Heydon J concluded that the requirement that the opinion be based wholly or substantially on specialised knowledge is an explicit precondition of admissibility that, like other preconditions under s 79, is to be established by the party tendering the evidence. It is to be established in examination in chief (during the trial or on voir dire), not in cross-examination or in non-evidentiary documents required by rules of court for other purposes. His Honour identified[22] six reasons why that proposition was sound in principle that I need not set out here.

94 Next in respect of the proof of assumptions rule, Heydon J held that an opinion tendered under s 79 is inadmissible, unless there was evidence capable of proving matters sufficiently similar to the assumptions made by the expert to render the opinion of value, admitted or to be admitted before the end of the tendering party's case. This conclusion required analysis of the 'determinative significance' of observations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission.[23] This analysis is lengthy, with his Honour concluding:

A construction of s 79 which holds that there is no proof of assumption rule in relation to s 79 tenders is difficult to reconcile with the practical exigencies pursuant to which parties conduct their cases. It is necessary for trials to be conducted in a businesslike and efficient way. That is a matter of context pointing to the view that there is a proof of assumption rule with which those tendering expert opinion evidence must comply by reason of ss 55, 56 and 79 read against the background of the common law.

95 Heydon J also accepted that ample authority correctly supports the statement of reasoning rule:[24]

... it is not enough for evidence tendered under s 79 merely to state the expert's qualifications in a field of expertise and the conclusion. It is necessary to avoid the insidious risk that the trier of fact will simply accept the opinion without careful evaluation of the steps by which it was reached, and hence the evidence must state the criteria necessary to enable the trier of fact to evaluate that the expert's conclusions are valid. The evidence must reveal the expert's reasoning - how the expert used expertise to reach the opinion stated. It is not enough for evidence tendered under s 79 merely to state the expert's qualifications in a field of expertise and the conclusion. Admissibility does not depend on the reasoning being accepted as correct; that is a matter for consideration at the end of the trial. But admissibility does depend on the reasoning being stated. ... There is nothing in s 79 which suggests that the corresponding common law rule has been abolished. And the language of s 79 positively supports its continuance: without a statement of the expert's reasoning it is not possible to say whether the opinion is wholly or substantially based on the specialist knowledge claimed. [Citations omitted]

96 Finally, Heydon J noted the important interdependence of these three rules:

If the assumed facts are not stated, no reasoning process can be stated and the opinion will lack utility; if there is no evidence, called or to be called, capable of supporting the assumed facts, no reasoning process, even if stated, will have utility; and even if there are facts both assumed and capable of being supported by the evidence, they will lack utility if no reasoning process is stated. In each instance, a lack of utility results in irrelevance and inadmissibility.

97 In Dasreef, all members of the court held that the doctor's opinion evidence was inadmissible, however the majority considered the correct disposition of the appeal was to dismiss it without costs. Heydon J would have remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal. That the majority did not consider it necessary to discuss the factual basis rules does not, in my view, preclude a trial judge from drawing assistance in resolving admissibility questions under s 79 from what I consider, with respect, to be the erudite, and practical, analysis that Heydon J has provided.

98 In summary, the matters that will usually be considered at both stages of the inquiry that considers whether the exception under s 79(1) renders opinion evidence admissible may conveniently be referred to as four 'rules' (one of which is in three parts), which are:

(a) is the opinion relevant (or of sufficient probative value[25]) (the relevance rule);

(b) has the witness properly based 'specialised knowledge' (the expertise rule);

(c) is the opinion to be propounded 'wholly or substantially based' on specialised knowledge (the expertise basis rule);

(d) is the opinion to be propounded 'wholly or substantially based' on facts assumed or observed that have been, or will be, proved, or more specifically (the factual basis rules):

1. are the 'facts' and 'assumptions' on which the expert's opinion is founded disclosed (the assumption identification rule);
2. is there evidence admitted, or to be admitted before the end of the tendering party's case, capable of proving matters sufficiently similar to the assumptions made by the expert to render the opinion of value (the proof of assumptions rule);
3. is there a statement of reasoning showing how the 'facts' and 'assumptions' relate to the opinion stated to reveal that that opinion is based on the expert's specialised knowledge (the statement of reasoning rule)?[26]

Objections to expert evidence - rulings on admissibility

99 I will first consider Mr Martin and Mr Holman, as the objections to the latter raise some further issues of principle. I will then deal with the experts grouped by their area of expertise.

100 Mr Martin's evidence was in a different category to other experts. There was no expert contradicting his opinions. Hue contended that his evidence was wholly irrelevant. I agreed, and so ruled, for the following reasons.

101 Mr Martin was instructed by Dura to survey and assess the present condition of the plasterboard walls as completed by the new builder Liquid Lines. That is what Mr Martin did, by reference to the Victorian Building Commission's publication Guide to Standards and Tolerances, which, on its face, is inapplicable to a contract that specifies the standards and tolerances required. Dura could not identify the fact in issue, proof of which Dura asserted was rationally affected by Mr Martin's evidence. Dura suggested that the present condition of the plasterboard walls was relevant to the reasonableness of Hue's decision to partly demolish Dura's plasterboard work but could not identify how the pleadings raised that issue. In the sense defined by s 55 of the Evidence Act, the plumb, flatness and level of the plasterboard that Dura installed is a relevant issue and the assessment of the tolerances is a fact relevant to that issue. What Dura could not show was that the attitude of the principal to the work later done by Liquid Lines was a relevant issue. Dura contended the reasonableness of the conduct of Hue (in accepting non-complaint work from Liquid Lines) is relevant, somehow, from a pleaded allegation that the demolition of the plasterboard was 'wrongful'. Mr Martin's evidence concerned the reasonableness of Hue's acceptance of the plasterwork of Liquid Lines. Assuming the reasonableness of Hue's decision to demolish Dura's plasterwork to be relevant to wrongful demolition, Mr Martin's evidence cannot rationally affect that issue.

102 Mr Holman, from Wood & Grieve, was the author of a report dated 26 August 2011 that dealt with mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical engineering services. Mr Holman is an expert mechanical services engineer. Opinions expressed about hydraulic and electrical services were not Mr Holman's opinions. They were the work of Messrs Edwards and Tomkins, each of whom gave evidence. Messrs Edwards and Tomkins had not signed off on the Holman report, but each engineer, and an assistant, Mr Hanlon, gave evidence. The earlier cases identify problems with verification of joint expert reports by only one author, but I accept, for the reasons that follow, that no such problems are present in respect of Mr Holman's report. However, care is required, as only Mr Holman has acknowledged that the Expert Code of Conduct binds him in relation to the report.

Joint reports and supervised assistance with reports

103 In Cooke v Commissioner of Taxation[27] a report by a witness, an expert in the fields of horticulture, agronomy and agricultural economics, was jointly authored with another expert, not called. The authors also acknowledged the assistance of others, not called, working under the supervision of the author who was not called. There was no clear identification of the roles of each author in the opinions expressed. Stone J rejected the report, as not wholly or substantially based on the expert witness's specialised knowledge, permitting the witness to testify only in relation to the parts of the report for which he had been responsible.

104 In Paino v Paino[28] Barrett J excluded a joint report concerning a valuation of foreign property where only one author was called and there was no clear definition of the parts of the report for which the witness was responsible. Following cross-examination, Barrett J found that as the report was based upon the knowledge each of the joint authors, he could not conclude that it was based 'wholly' or even 'substantially' on the witness's knowledge.

105 In Nm Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd,[29] a witness, an expert agronomist, employed by a firm of agronomists, had compiled reports that did not comply with formalities, such as the Expert Code of Conduct. The work of the witness was supervised by a principal of the firm of agronomists. The reports were prepared to provide advice to the plaintiff as a client, not as the expression of expert opinion or for use in legal proceedings. Later the two agronomists produced for the plaintiff several draft reports in collaboration. The principal did not sign off on these reports, as the firm was promoting itself and the witness to the plaintiff. The witness's reports were tendered without objection, including to the want of compliance with formalities. A second report authored by the principal was objected to on tender. The form of the reports was substantially the same as those tendered, but there were some differences in content.

106 These circumstances identify a commonly arising issue of delegation where an expert's retainer is essentially a retainer of a consultant firm rather than an individual. There will be either delegation to assistants, possibly unidentified, who undertake preparatory investigation, calculation, research, or delegation to another consultant, who has different, and relevant, expertise from which to opine on the instructions that have been given to the consultant firm. This practice is permissible provided the expert(s) who give evidence have considered the work performed by their delegates and from their own specialised knowledge and by transparent reasoning have adopted that work as their own. It is far less likely that an expert will be able to do so in the latter case if the other consultant, with different expertise, has contributed to the report.

107 In Rimanui Farms, Harrison J analysed the New South Wales authorities[30] where such issues have been considered, identifying two important considerations. The party opposing tender should not be prejudiced by an inability to cross-examine the author of a report in a way that meaningfully exposes the validity of the opinions expressed. The court should not be required to form a view, or to decide an issue, upon the basis of an opinion that does not withstand objective scrutiny.[31] On the facts before him, Harrison J considered the transparent adoption by the second author of the reports to the client by the first author as his expert opinion exposed it immediately to this type of scrutiny. As both authors enjoyed the same base of specialised knowledge, the requirement that the opinion is wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge did not arise. Being satisfied that the report of the second expert, including adopted material, represented the genuine opinions of that witness, without masked or disguised collaboration, Harrison J permitted its tender.

108 Mr Holman's report is a joint report by experts with different, albeit related, fields of specialised knowledge, and, in a minor way, the issue of adopting the work of assistants also arises. I will admit the report for the following reasons.

109 A failure by Hue to produce for cross-examination the other experts who participated in the opinions expressed may have proved fatal to the admissibility of the Holman report, but that did not occur. Dura cross-examined Messrs Edwards and Tomkins about not 'signing-off' on the Holman report. Mr Edwards said he no longer worked for Wood & Grieve. Mr Tompkins was a part time consultant. As a matter of forensic choice, Dura did not cross-examine either witness beyond that issue of signing off on the final version of the tendered report, save to question Mr Edwards on the role of an assistant engineer.

110 Second, the nature of the report is relevant. For each type of defect, the report identified a relevant example, the units where it was said to have been present, the history of inspection, identification, and reporting of that defect from August 2006, the applicable specification, or code, or other requirement that established the standard against which what was observed or assumed to be present had been measured for classification as a defect and a comment explaining the reasoning or consequences of the assessment of the defect. A set of dated photographs illustrated each type of defect, including identification of the photograph location, or an extract from a drawing. The parts of the report that are the work of each of the contributing experts are clearly distinguishable, plainly compiled from their prior work. I am satisfied that it is not difficult to identify those parts of the report that are wholly or substantially based on the expert specialised knowledge of each of the relevant witnesses. Nevertheless, where joint reports are necessary, each joint contributor should usually sign off specifically identifying the parts of the report that are that author's responsibility.

111 Thirdly, in the case of Mr Tompkins, still employed by Wood & Grieve, he provided an extensive witness statement, acknowledging the Expert's Code and explaining the reasoning of his opinions as they appeared in the original contemporaneous reports and, from that reference, in the Holman report. The failure by Mr Edwards to acknowledge the Expert Code is a discretionary matter. I can, and do, take into account the nature of the Holman report, the earlier reports that are cross-referenced, which are also in evidence, Mr Edwards' evidence concerning those earlier reports and his responses under cross-examination. While it is important to discourage expert evidence that had not been prepared by adherence to the Expert's Code, I will not, in the case of that part of the report that was Mr Edward's responsibility exclude it for that reason. I am satisfied that, in each case, the Holman report does no more than collate and reproduce the genuine opinions of Messrs Edwards and Tompkins in one report. This process does not deny opportunity to the cross-examiner or the court for objective scrutiny of the opinions expressed.

112 Fourthly, Dura's opposing report, that of Mr Barber of Arup Associates, a fire services engineer, was prepared with the assistance of expert mechanical, hydraulic and electrical engineers employed by Arup. Dura did not call these other engineers. Hue objected throughout the trial to Mr Barber's report on this and other grounds. Dura's solicitors first instructed Mr Barber on 1 September 2011. This delay arose from Dura's, much debated, apparent expectation of no expert evidence about hydraulic, electrical, and mechanical engineering services until Hue served the Holman report shortly after 26 August 2011. In final submissions, Hue took no issue with Mr Barber's report.

113 Finally, there was a joint expert's conclave attended only by Mr Holman and Mr Barber. The two experts used their respective reports as a basis for their discussions in conclave of the 114 defects or defect types identified by photograph or contemporaneous inspection, or otherwise alleged to be present in the works in respect of mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic engineering. The joint conclave focussed on whether there was sufficient evidence that a defect had existed and whether workmanship of the type identified was defective. The latter issue was not unlike the substance of Mr Atchison's evidence, discussed below. Following the conclave, Mr Holman and Mr Barber jointly reported that they had reached agreement on all but three items. It is not possible to understand this joint report, which is extensively cross-referenced, without considering the Holman report and the Barber report. The agreement between Mr Holman and Mr Barber was that they regarded the substantial majority of the instances of defective work identified in photographs and other contemporaneous descriptions as properly characterised as defective, or non-compliant, work.

114 Hue objected that Mr Browning was not an expert in programming. Mr Browning's witness statement/reports provided no evidence of any specialised knowledge and were, on their face, inadmissible. Despite that his curriculum vitae was updated and specially printed for his report, it said nothing of education, training or experience in construction programming. Dura conceded as much and, with leave, adduced oral evidence from Mr Browning about his qualifications and experience.

Further evidence of Mr Browning's specialised knowledge

115 Mr Browning has over 30 years' experience as a building consultant and expert witness in court proceedings and arbitrations. Mr Browning has extensive experience in diagnosis of defects in residential and commercial buildings and in the preparation of defects and rectification assessment, and costing, reports. Mr Browning's academic qualification is a Bachelor of Building from the University of Melbourne, awarded in 1977. Mr Browning explained that during his final year he studied construction programming, principally critical path method, and Gantt charting. His academic qualifications are no more specialised than any other building or architecture degree graduate. In his business, Mr Browning has used both Mac Project Pro and MS Project.

116 What emerged from Mr Browning's further evidence was that while his undergraduate studies may have been a good start, it was not a field of expertise in which he has practised. Mr Browning stated that he used the program in some personal residential building projects. Mr Browning had been required to investigate a programming issue for the purposes of giving expert evidence on about half a dozen occasions over the last 15 years. These were mostly residential projects, with one commercial project similar in size to this project. All that he did was prepare a report as the dispute settled prior to trial. I am not satisfied that the issues considered for that report bear any appropriate resemblance to the issues arising in this proceeding. Mr Browning conceded that he has limited contact with the regular use of construction programming in projects of this size. He suggested that the essential experience is understanding how projects operate, how construction activities are linked or sequenced, and how, or why, they may be delayed. That is self-evident. Mr Browning's practical experience with programming was not, on any reasonable view, significant, specialist, or substantial.

117 I am not satisfied on the evidence that Mr Browning has specialised knowledge as required by s 79 of the Evidence Act 2008. Analysis of the evidence he gave, including his response to my questions, reinforces the impression created by his curriculum vitae. His statement shows that he undertook no greater exercise than simply utilising the MS Project software. While he may have done so with a better understanding of its functionality than Mr Maaser, his evidence of what he did does not demonstrate any specialised knowledge. All he did was apply his knowledge of construction activities to a software program. His experience in construction programming is in fact quite limited. His evidence was ultimately an exercise in putting through the mouth of an apparent expert the inferences and hypotheses on which Dura advanced its position. Experts who permit a commitment to the cause of their instructing party to overshadow their commitment to the Expert Code of Conduct do not ultimately serve that party's cause. It became increasingly apparent during the concurrent evidence session that Mr Browning did not have a basis of specialised knowledge that permitted an independent appreciation of the processes and practices of proper construction programming in the sense defined by cl 33 of the contract.

118 Mr Browning's evidence was wholly or substantially based on his forensic experience as an expert building consultant. Dura has failed to show that the exception under s 79(1) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) applies and Mr Browning's evidence is not admissible by reason of s 76 of the Act. I note Hue took further objection that Mr Browning's report fails the assumption identification rule and the proof of assumption rule, but it is not necessary to further consider these contentions.

119 An issue arises whether I should consider Dura's objection to a report by Mr Andrews, Hue's construction programming specialist. Despite the directions I gave, prompted by the need for procedure in resolving the status of challenges to the experts, Dura did not object to Mr Andrews's evidence by earlier notice to Hue or when that evidence was received. Dura took the objection in its final address. At that stage, Mr Andrews evidence had been admitted absolutely. Dura's objection was to Mr Andrews report of 23 February 2010 only. The objection is too late and I reject it for that reason.

120 I will add that the objection lacked merit. Dura initially submitted that Mr Andrews lacked specialist knowledge. I am satisfied that he possessed specialist knowledge based on his training, study, and experience. Dura objected to Mr Andrews' 2010 report on three grounds. The first point taken went to weight, not admissibility. Dura put a general assertion that, by reference to the dates of correspondence, I ought to infer that Mr Andrews was in some way influenced by Hue's solicitors when he compiled his 2010 report; that the solicitors 'directed' Mr Andrew's inquiry. Dura contended that I could not identify what parts of the report were the work of the witness, with the extent of the external influence such that the report failed the expertise basis rule. If that is so, how the report failed the expertise basis rule was not identified in final address. I accept that Mr Andrews' report is wholly or substantially based on his specialised knowledge, and not on the 'influence' of Hue's solicitors.

121 Dura contended that Mr Andrews' report be ruled inadmissible on other grounds. In the event it is later said that I ought to have given those grounds further consideration for the weight that ought to be attributed to his evidence in my deliberations, I will deal briefly with them. Dura contended that the report was inadmissible by the application of each of the factual basis rules; the assumptions underlying the opinions expressed in the report were not identified, those assumptions had not been proved, and the witness's reasoning did not show how the facts and assumptions relate to the opinion stated. In developing this submission, Dura first took a different point. Mr Andrews relied on the work of an assistant and although he gave evidence that he had validated the assistant's work, his report did not explain precisely the process of validation. To understand this and the remaining objections of Dura, I will explain the methodology that Mr Andrews adopted.

122 Firstly, Mr Andrews made a general assessment. He reviewed the programs provided in hard copy form by Dura to the superintendent. He also reviewed copies of the program in Microsoft Project format (*.mpp) that had been obtained on discovery. He assumed, on instructions but correctly, that Dura prepared these programs. He also assumed appropriately, in the absence of a status date in the programs, that the program preparation date was the status date. The programs he reviewed were prepared on the following dates (with the date of practical completion shown in parenthesis): 30 November 2004 (17 May 2006); 8 June 2005 (13 October 2006); 10 October 2005 (16 October 2006); 20 March 2006 (7 December 2006); and 31 March 2006 (11 October 2006). Mr Andrews observed that no construction programs were available in the period between 24 July 2006 and 17 November 2006, which includes the period when Hue issued its notice to show cause.

123 Mr Andrews noted that a review of five further unapproved programs prepared between 22 May and 17 November 2006 demonstrated that Dura progressively updated the programs to reflect the work proceeding at the time. This was achieved by updating the durations of activities, adding additional activities, and revising logical linkages between activities. All of the adjustments, for programs issued since 22 May 2006, contributed to extend the forecast date of practical completion.

124 Secondly, to assess the progress of the works during September 2006, Mr Andrews undertook a different analysis. He identified the progress of the works during September 2006 from his assessment of the inspection audit reports prepared by Mr Borgia, Dura's progress claims, the superintendent's payment schedule and WT Partnership's progress reports for the financier. The most appropriate program to determine the forecast date of practical completion during September 2006 was Dura's last electronic program, produced on 31 March 2006. As the use of a program produced five months prior to the relevant period was not satisfactory, Mr Andrews' assistant updated the program to include the progress of the works identified from these project documents, completing this analysis for the following status dates: 30 August, 7, 14, and 19 September 2006.

125 Mr Andrews validated and used the updated programs, prepared as I have described, to assess the forecast date of practical completion. Comparison with the previous status date demonstrated any gain or slippage in progress in the intervening period. This methodology may be contrasted with that of Mr Browning, who asked Mr Brunner to make 'adjustments' to program linkages and data, relying on Mr Brunner to identify the progress of the works or relevant variable that were the subject of the adjustments. Dura contended that nowhere in his report did Mr Andrews (or Ms Lai, who actually did the work) set out the changes made to the programs. Nor did they set out the source of the data used or the reasoning behind the changes made. Mr Andrews responded that the data in the electronic files associated with the program, which were accessible for analysis, exposed his reasoning.

126 Thus, submitted Dura, the cross-examiner and the court each must accept the validity of the adjusted programs and the accuracy and validity of the information, whatever that might have been, used for such adjustments. No reason was shown not to do so. Further, Dura contended that Hue had not tendered in evidence the WT Partnership progress reports included in the documents provided to Mr Andrews that he examined. As assumptions have not been identified and, in some cases, remain unproven, the report is inadmissible.

127 I disagree. There are several reasons for rejecting this submission. First, Mr Andrews methodology of reconstructing the relevant programming variables from independent sources was, he said, the proper approach to independent verification of such data. Proper practice required that programs be regularly updated so that the source data in the program - when activities commenced, expected duration, relation to other activities, and the status of particular activities - reflected what was occurring on site. That evidence was not contradicted. It is basic common sense that a programmer would continuously adjust the program to reflect delays, changes in the scope of works, permitted extensions of time and so on. That is one of the reasons the superintendent sought copies of the program in its native electronic format.

128 Second, Mr Andrews has stated his assumptions. He determined the status of the work and of individual activities by his analysis of the reports of others as I have just explained. I do not accept Mr Browning's approach of inviting Mr Maaser to make undocumented adjustments that cannot now be explained or replicated.

129 Third, in my view, Mr Andrews has sufficiently exposed the relationship between his assumptions and methodology. The minutiae need not be exposed. In many instances, the workings or calculations are not matters that a court need assess for itself. The parties or their advisers should satisfy themselves about such details as source data. Any issues can be exposed by an opposing expert or the cross-examiner. The focus of attention is to ensure that the court, as the tribunal of fact, is able to examine and assess the opinions presented to it. That can occur without analysis and assessment of every detailed step in the process. What Heydon JA identified as the expert's 'prime duty' is satisfied if the expert identifies the facts and reasoning process which he or she asserts justify the opinion. There is sufficient detail in Mr Andrews' reports to enable the court to evaluate his opinions.

130 Returning to the original reason for rejecting Dura's objection, Mr Thomas of WT Partnership gave evidence. Dura did not challenge his progress reports. There was no suggestion that I reject any of Mr Thomas' documents. This is not to say that his opinions about the progress of the works that were prepared for assessing progress claims could not have been challenged, merely that they weren't challenged. Mr Andrews adjusted the programs to show the status of the works at a particular date, using Mr Thomas' report dated 12 September 2006. Mr Andrews also used other sources that went unchallenged, such as site diaries, Dura's progress claim No. 24, four audit reports prepared by Mr Borgia, and the superintendent's payment schedule of 8 September 2006. Mr Andrews' evidence was tendered and his cross-examination conducted when Dura had not, contrary to my directions, given notice of objection to Mr Andrews' evidence. Nothing in Dura's cross-examination of Mr Andrews or Mr Thomas suggests any challenge to Mr Thomas' 12 September 2006 report. Dura's objection is, essentially one of form, not substance. It amounts to seeking a tactical advantage late in a document intensive case from a failure to tender a small number of documents. I am entitled to, and do, infer that the status of the works represented by Mr Andrews' adjusted programs is appropriately based in contemporaneous records that neither Dura nor Mr Browning sought to challenge when the opportunity was present.

131 I have approached Mr Andrew's evidence with care, as notwithstanding his statement of acceptance of the Expert Code, Hue engaged him as its advising consultant, well before the works were taken from Dura.

132 Dura tendered evidence from Mr Robert Lorich, a building consultant. His qualifications and expertise were not in issue. As a building consultant his expertise lies in the assessment of building works for matters such as compliance with contract documentation, Building Codes and other regulatory requirements, manufacturers' requirements, and proper practices of the trades. His field of expertise broadly correlates with that of Mr Atchison. Mr Lorich, had he been instructed to do so, could have agreed or limited the field of disagreement with Mr Atchison about many aspects of Mr Atchison's evidence. Dura instructed Mr Lorich to inspect the works on various occasions from 20 October 2006 onwards and provide a report as to what he observed. Between 18 April 2007 and 16 July 2008, he provided five reports to Dura. Hue objected that his evidence was inadmissible, failing to meet the expertise rule, the relevance rule, and the factual basis rules.

133 Mr Lorich's first report commented on defects referred to in an unspecified notice to show cause, noting defects that were 'work in progress' and therefore not defects, defects that had been rectified, or defects that were inadequately identified. Mr Lorich acknowledged that he could not comment about works concealed by installed plasterboard. Inspecting units 3-9, he observed the state of partial completion and commented that the quality of the workmanship was of a reasonable standard and generally in accordance with the contract documents, except for minor errors, which are common for work in progress.

134 Mr Lorich's second report, dated 18 April 2007, was based on an inspection on 19 February 2007. This was during the course of Hue's opening up of the works. His report documented what he then observed. Mr Lorich described the state of the inspected units, and the status of the 'stripping' out that had been undertaken, but did not offer any opinion. Mr Lorich's third report, also dated 18 April 2007, was based on an inspection on 26 March 2007. Again, he described the state of the inspected units, noting that units 10 to 27 had been fully stripped out but new work had not started. A large number of photographs taken by Mr Lorich documented each of these inspection reports.

135 Mr Lorich's fourth report, dated 6 August 2007, was based on an inspection on 27 July 2007, conducted at Dura's request that Mr Lorich inspect the project and 'comment' on the state of the construction works at a time when the completion/enhancement works by Liquid lines were under way. The final report was for the same purpose. Mr Lorich reported, on 16 July 2008, his observations of the work of Liquid Lines on 7 December 2007. In these reports, a large number of photographs taken by Mr Lorich documented the inspections.

136 The fourth and fifth reports are inadmissible because the subject matter of the reports, the status of the construction work of Liquid Lines at the date of each inspection, is irrelevant to the issues raised in the proceeding. To the extent that those reports contain opinion, in the form of criticism of the quality of the construction work of Liquid Lines, such opinion cannot go to establish the existence of a fact in issue. It is unnecessary to consider whether the reports otherwise fail to enliven the s 79 exception to inadmissibility of opinion.

137 The second and third reports do not contain opinion. Those reports documented the state of the works on the respective inspection dates. Hue contended that as such, these reports are not relevant to any pleaded issue, but I do not accept that this is necessarily so. Hue submitted that photographs could have documented the status of the works on those dates. I agree. That is what Mr Lorich did and I will admit those reports as evidence of his recording of the status of the works on those dates, a matter that may be relevant to the opinions of others expressed in relation to the assessment of the superintendent's cl 44.6 costs to complete certificate. Being relevant only in this sense, had the issue arisen in a timely way, Mr Lorich may not have qualified to attend a joint conclave of experts.

138 Hue contended that Mr Lorich's first report breached the factual basis rules. I am satisfied that this objection is made out as Mr Lorich failed to make clear his assumption that there are no standards, tolerances and quality provisions specified by the contract. That assumption is wrong and was never capable of being established. In his evidence, Mr Lorich fails to disclose whether, and if so what, contract documents Dura provided to him. It is impossible to know from his report whether he had, and had reviewed, the contract drawings or specifications. What then is the content of the opinion that the workmanship is 'of a reasonable standard'. If it is based on a standard other than that agreed to by the parties in their contract, the opinion is irrelevant. When cross-examined, Mr Lorich conceded that he did not have the contract, any of the drawings, the specifications, the visual audit report, the underlying works report, nor the reports of the experts he met in conclave, Mr Atchison and Mr Bonaldi. I cannot discern any proper content in his expression of adherence to the Expert Code.

139 I reject Mr Lorich's first, fourth and fifth reports as inadmissible by reason of ss 55 and 76 of the Evidence Act. For these reasons, Mr Lorich's contribution to the joint conclave report and the concurrent evidence session with Messrs Faifer, Atchison, and Bonaldi does not assist me and I will not take any of that evidence into account. I accept the second and third reports as factual evidence of his observations of the state of the works as at 19 February 2007 and 26 March 2007.

140 Hue tendered a report by Mr John Atchison, a building consultant. His qualifications and expertise were not in issue. Dura objected that his evidence was inadmissible and failed the assumption identification rule. Mr Atchison inspected the site on 25 May and 7 June 2007, invited by Hue to express his opinion whether Dura's work complied with contract drawings and specifications, industry codes and standards, and the requirements for relevant certification. Hue also sought his opinion about the necessity for remedial work that Hue undertook, including removal of plasterboard and any time, cost and/or other consequences if Hue had not undertaken such remedial work.

141 Dura contends that Mr Atchison's report, provided by an experienced expert in building disputes, read, and was intended to be read, as a report on extensive defects observed throughout the works. Mr Atchison rejected the suggestion that he had prepared a report that could be read in that way.

142 It was clear that Mr Atchison had not personally observed numerous instances of defects and that his report assumed that numerous instances of a defect of a defined category were present in the works on 23 October 2006. Inspections took place in May and June 2007, after demolition had occurred. However, assuming defects of the identified categories does not render his evidence inadmissible as Dura contends. Dura contends correctly that Mr Atchison does not identify the precise location of his observations (unit numbers/levels/rooms). Photographs provided do not identify dates or locations. Mr Atchison exhibited only one photograph when stating that he has inspected 'the photographs'. Such observations are consistently true for each category of defect discussed in the report. Hue tenders the report as opinion evidence about defects not as a catalogue of observations of defects throughout the works.

143 Mr Atchison's assumptions are adequately stated. Mr Atchison did not attempt full documentation of the state of the works. He did not quantify the defects. Rather, he took each reported type of defect, identified examples of that type of defect on site and/or in photographs provided to him by Hue. He then identified the relevant clause of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), the specification or applicable drawing and any relevant manufacturer's recommendation and expressed his view whether the identified type of defect was compliant or non-compliant work. He suggested an appropriate rectification method.

144 Mr Atchison examined forty-five reported types of defect in this manner, generally describing the categories of defects as follows:

145 In particular, Mr Atchison singled out seven particular defect types that he considered demonstrated that the builder's work had not complied with the contract drawings, specifications, and industry codes and standards. The defect types identified encompassed fire separation, mechanical plant and equipment installation, electrical and communication cabling, pipe fixing and locations, set out and position of slabs and walls, wet area linings and waterproofing, and ceiling heights. Mr Atchison identified reasons why the remedial work required the demolition of the plasterboard linings, including:

• incorrectly installed mechanical equipment, electrical and communication cabling, pipe work, partition fire separation and detailing;
• inadequate sound attenuation and waterproofing; and
• joinery incorrectly positioned.

146 In Mr Atchison's opinion if the remedial work had not been undertaken, the building would not be compliant and would be unlikely to be certified for occupancy. The occupants would suffer reduced fire safety and difficulties with airconditioning and ventilation. A lack of adequate noise attenuation would likely create a nuisance to occupants and reduce the intrinsic value of the apartments.

1. Mr Atchison's evidence is admissible. Hue expects, and I am satisfied that its expectation has been discharged, to prove by other evidence the assumption that defects of the forty-five types described by Mr Atchison were present in the works on 23 October 2006. The relevance of Mr Atchison's evidence is his opinion that each category of defect is, in the manner that he explains by drawing on his specialised knowledge, a result of a failure to comply with the drawings, specifications, the BCA, industry codes or manufacturer's specifications as the case may be and can be rectified in the manner that he suggests. Sensibly, such matters might have been the subject of admission, or agreement between the building consultant experts, since, in this respect Dura did not challenge Mr Atchison's evidence.

148 Mr Rico Bonaldi is an architect called by Hue. His qualifications and expertise were not in issue. Hue instructed Mr Bonaldi to address the following issues in relation to plasterboard use, application, and finish:

(a) whether or not the works undertaken by Dura complied with the contractual drawings and specifications, industry codes and industry standards (including any applicable manufacturer's standards); and,

(b) if any of the Works undertaken by Dura did not comply, identify which part/s of the Works do not comply and explain in what way/s the works performed did not comply, including reference to the relevant contractual drawings, specifications, industry codes and/or industry standards as applicable; and explain any consequences of the non-compliance.

149 I will set out elsewhere the substance of Mr Bonaldi's evidence. Dura took a specific objection, asserting that Mr Bonaldi expressed an opinion about the proper interpretation of the contract, a matter outside his expertise. I disagree. Mr Bonaldi identified certain aspects of the contract and specifications to measure whether the works were compliant. This is no more than the statement of an assumption relevant to the reasoning of his opinion. It is within the expertise of an architect to read and understand the technical specifications defined by the contractual documents. It is equally within the expertise of an architect to opine about whether construction has achieved specified standards.

150 Next, Dura contended that Mr Bonaldi made his own observations or comments about what occurred on site, matters that must be assumptions of fact, without disclosing the source of the assumption. Dura was directing this criticism at the summary section of his report, rather than the detailed sections, and could have put its concerns in cross-examination. Mr Bonaldi was doing no more than making the point that AI 309a was issued after inspection by the project architect, an opportunity not available to him. Dura's criticism continued, still directed at Mr Bonaldi's executive summary, that summary statements do not identify his assumptions of fact, and offend the rule. There is no breach of the assumption identification rule in these passages of his report.

151 Dura challenged Mr Bonaldi's analysis of the fire rating achieved for walls between any two units or units and public corridor, submitting there is a breach of the assumption identification rule. I disagree. I will in due course set out that evidence. I am satisfied that Mr Bonaldi did carefully identify how he reached his conclusions from a combination of the workmanship found on investigation of unit 5 (there having been demolition of plaster sheeting in many places by the time of his inspection) and from his review of the photographic and video evidence collected by others. To the extent that Mr Bonaldi has assumed that what he observed on unit 5 or in other places was typical plasterwork, Hue has proved that assumption by other evidence. Further, Messrs Chu and Hon Wong also proved the photographs and videos.

152 I reject the objections to Mr Bonaldi's evidence and admit his reports. I will add at this stage that I accept Mr Bonaldi's evidence. His reports were carefully and cogently compiled in my view. This evidence was not directly contradicted by any other expert, despite the opportunity afforded to Dura, pre-trial, to do so. Dura did not call its plasterer. Further, each of Messrs Brunner and Maaser made concessions in cross-examination that the plasterwork was unsatisfactory. I am satisfied that the conclusions Mr Bonaldi expressed about plasterwork, in terms both of fire rating issues and tolerances and finishes, were appropriately reasoned from his expertise and the assumptions and observations that he identified, which Hue has established to my satisfaction.

153 Messrs Shah and Vapp are quantity surveyors. Called by Dura, their evidence covered, in part, the same field as Mr Thomas, a quantity surveyor called by Hue. Mr Thomas met with Messrs Shah, Vapp, and Faifer in a joint conclave. Dura did not challenge the admissibility of the evidence of Mr Thomas. Mr Shah's evidence was specific. He inspected the works on 20 October 2006 to assess, on a percentage basis, the works completed by Dura up to that date. Mr Shah recorded his assessment in a spreadsheet on a unit-by-unit basis.

154 Hue's objection to Mr Shah's evidence was that he failed to make his assumptions clear and, if the assumption was that the works completed were all compliant with the contract, specifications, Building Code, and industry standards, as applicable, then the assumption has not been proved. The first ground of objection is made out on the face of the report. The implicit assumption that the observed state of the works on 20 October 2006 was a valid basis for assessing the percentage completion of various trades in each unit. Mr Shah made no allowance for defective or non-compliant work.

155 The second ground of objection is that Dura did not provide instructions to Mr Shah about defective or non-compliant work, when there was an abundance of documentary material on that subject then available. Mr Shah asserted familiarity with the Expert Code. Mr Shah did not issue any caution about the impact on his assessment of any defective or non-compliant work. He does not state in his report that the work he inspected was free of defects and compliant with the contractual documents, which he had in his possession. He does not allude to the implication of not being so satisfied. Mr Shah's report does not adequately identify his methodology. His reasoning to his assessed 'percentages complete' figures is not transparent. It is not clear that the assessment he makes is reliable or if so, why. An opinion that cannot be exposed to objective scrutiny is no basis for the court to form a view, or to decide an issue.

156 Mr Shah confirmed to the cross-examiner that he assumed that the works underneath plasterboard, or wherever he was unable to inspect visually, complied with the contract and the specification, the BCA, the relevant Australian Standards and good industry practices. He allowed no discount or reduction of the percentage attributed to each trade for defective works. However I am not persuaded that that issue alone ought to determine the question of admissibility since, in the experts' joint reports, all experts including Mr Thomas for Hue, agreed that the assessment of the stage of the works can be done without allowance for rectification of defective or non-compliant works. That issue was a matter for the superintendent or the parties themselves. If that be the case, the assumption that the work was free of defects and compliant was identified by Mr Shah, at least implicitly.

157 However, cross-examination exposed Mr Shah's statement of his methodology as unsatisfactory. During a 3-hour inspection, which could only allow the briefest opportunity in each unit, Mr Shah worked with a Dura employee and a list of percentage completion by trade prepared by Mr Maaser and Mr Brunner. All that Mr Shah did, for the most part, was accept the Dura figures, occasionally making an alteration or a comment. Treating Mr Shah's cross-examination as a voir dire, the objection to admissibility was well taken and I am satisfied that Mr Shah failed to adequately state his methodology. His evidence failed to establish that the expertise basis rule and the statement of reasoning rule have been satisfied. That is sufficient reason to reject his evidence. Although Mr Shah participated in the joint conclave and the concurrent evidence session, his limited contribution to each process was not of assistance.

158 Dura also retained Mr Vapp, another quantity surveyor, to provide an estimate of the reasonable value of the works completed by Dura as at 20 October 2006. He was not available to inspect the works in October 2006 and relies on Mr Shah's assessment, rather than any physical inspection or photos taken by Dura. It is immediately apparent on reading his report that Dura briefed him with other material that was not proved at trial. An important example is an estimate made by a John Cortese, described as a service engineer, of the value of the mechanical and electrical services. The proper inference is that the values attributed to mechanical and electrical services within the estimates made by Mr Vapp were not wholly or substantially based on Mr Vapp's specialised knowledge[32] and the assumption that Mr Cortese's assessments were proper and appropriate was never established. It was not possible for the court to ascertain how, in relation to specific line items, Mr Vapp relied on Mr Cortese's assessment; non-compliance with the statement of reasoning rule. There are similar difficulties arising from the unidentified photos, correspondence, and quotations from trades. More fundamentally, Mr Vapp's evidence, based on Mr Shah's evidence, cannot become admissible under s 79 following the rejection of Mr Shah's evidence for want of compliance with the proof of assumptions rule.

159 There is a further ground. An estimate of the reasonable value of the works completed by Dura as at 20 October 2006 is only relevant to the claims made by Dura if it is accepted that Dura validly terminated the contract and the occasion for a quantum meruit has arisen. As I have rejected Dura's claim that it validly terminated the contract, Mr Vapp's evidence is irrelevant.

160 For completeness, I will also record that Mr Vapp, like other quantity surveyors, made the implicit assumption that the works were free of defects and compliant with specifications. The assumption, commonly accepted at the expert's conclave, that the issue was a matter for the superintendent or the parties themselves cannot apply where the purpose of the assessment is to estimate the reasonable value of the works completed by Dura. That is so because Hue had no obligation, whether by contract or on a quantum meruit, to pay for defective or non-compliant work. The principle is of long standing, often traced back as the rule in Mondel v Steel.[33] Hue's defensive position was that the work of Dura was substantially diminished by the extent of defective or non-compliant work, a claim on which it would have borne the burden of proof. That issue was alive on the pleadings and to have ignored it when instructing the experts, as occurred here, resulted in breach of the factual basis rules for admissibility of opinion evidence. Despite acknowledging and expressing compliance with the Expert Code, there is an absence of comment from Mr Vapp about the significance of any defective and non-compliant works or the need to make inquiries about the existence of any defective and non-compliant works. Had he done so, Dura would have been obliged to draw to his attention the extensive material available that could have better informed Mr Vapp in his assessment of value in these circumstances.

161 Dura's objection to Mr Clack's evidence is specific and limited to the evidence of the value of the enhancements made by Hue when Liquid Lines completed the works. After Hue took the works from Dura, it engaged Mr Clack. One of his functions was to control the process of ascertaining the costs and expenses for the completion of the project. One aspect of this process was ascertaining the enhancement costs separate from the costs of completing Dura's work under the contract. In his report, Mr Clack stated that in undertaking his assessments, in order to clarify whether particular works related to an enhancement, amongst other inquiries he discussed the works with Mr Chu or Mr Chan. Dura contended that Mr Clack, in part, based his opinion about enhancement cost on unidentifiable oral instructions. The assumption identification rule or the proof of assumption rule operated to exclude this evidence. Dura contended that it was not possible from reading his statement (or from his oral evidence) to identify the reasoning behind a determination that an item of work was treated as an enhancement.

162 I disagree. Mr Clack's evidence was that whether an item of work was an enhancement was determined from drawings, and only clarified in discussion with Mr Chu or Mr Chan when clarification was needed. He identified his methodology and that he assumed that if the item is identified by either of them as an enhancement then he has allowed the ascertained cost as an enhancement cost. His clearly identified assumption left remaining the issue whether Hue has proved that the items of work for which Mr Clack allowed the ascertained costs as enhancement costs were in fact enhancements. I am satisfied, for reasons that I will develop elsewhere, that the evidence of Mr Chu and Mr Chan, particularly the sets of drawings produced by Mr Chan, does establish the items of work that are the enhancements costed by Mr Clack.

163 I would add that I have approached Mr Clack's evidence with care, as notwithstanding his statement of acceptance of the Expert Code, Hue engaged him shortly after the works were taken from Dura. Mr Clack is a member of the Hue camp. His expert evidence could be said to offer justification for the work that he carried out for reward for Hue. A subconscious bias in defence of his work and, in turn, in defence of Hue's position is possible. Having said that, Hue engaged Mr Clack precisely because it required quantity surveying expertise to manage the contract supervision and tendering processes necessitated by taking the works out of Dura's hands. His role as a witness was to explain the processes he implemented and the judgments that resulted from his work as a quantity surveyor in the circumstances that prevailed. I am satisfied that Mr Clack is a competent quantity surveyor who applied his skills, bona fide, to that task and I accept his evidence, to which I will return in greater detail in due course.

164 Dura called Mr Norman Faifer. He holds qualifications in Building, Quantity Surveying, Concrete Technology, and a Master of Technology in Construction. He has worked as a Master Builder, Quantity Surveyor and handled building disputes for more than ten years, and has generally been involved in the building industry since 1971. His apparent areas of expertise are in building technology, site construction supervision, contract management and superintendence, quantity surveying, estimating and costing, inspections and certifications, forensic building practices and building disputes resolution. Hue did not challenge his expertise.

165 Mr Faifer provided an expert report dated 28 April 2011 answering six questions, which he identifies in his report. There were six earlier expert reports provided to Dura during 2007, from May to October, which Mr Faifer drew together in his final report. Mr Faifer was an adviser to Dura when Liquid Lines was completing the works and before the superintendent issued the cl 44.6 certificate. In a sense, a major role for Mr Faifer was to review Mr Clack's work. In this role, an independent and impartial adviser can be invaluable to a party facing the prospect of a substantial and costly dispute, but so too can a dedicated partisan expert fighting for the best outcome for his instructing party be equally invaluable. When considering where on this continuum Mr Faifer's evidence rests I accept Hue's contention that Mr Faifer's evidence is not an independent, impartial, or informed assessment of quantity surveying issues.

166 Hue's contentions that Mr Faifer's report was inadmissible were in substance a complaint that it failed the proof of assumption rule. Of all of the rules concerning the exception to inadmissibility under s 79, this rule is least amenable to application at an early stage of the trial, unless the negative application is plain.[34] That is so because it may appear that assumptions can, or may, be supported by the end of the trial by findings of fact sufficiently similar to the expert's assumptions and for that reason the court may either admit, or conditionally admit, the evidence. In the result, the court may not be satisfied that such findings should be made. What occurred in this trial was that my conditional admissibility ruling permitted Mr Faifer's evidence to be received and the opportunity was there to assess his evidence on grounds other than admissibility. It has become difficult to disentangle issues of poor methodology from failure to prove the assumed factual basis on the one hand and issues of inadmissibility of parts of Mr Faifer's evidence from a conclusion that his evidence is not sufficiently reliable for reasons other than proof of assumptions on the other hand. For the reasons that follow, which are directed to both issues, I reject Mr Faifer's evidence as inadmissible, or, alternatively, deserving of little weight in my deliberations.

167 Hue submitted that the material with which Mr Faifer was briefed was selected by Dura, and Mr Faifer, while professing compliance with the Expert Code either accepted that selection as appropriate or saw no reason to qualify his reports or suggest appropriate further inquiries. It was apparent that, from the outset, Mr Faifer did not exercise an independent judgment about the documents from which he worked, and in cross-examination the problems stemming from his approach became evident. Although provided with the contract and specifications, he worked from a pre-contract set of drawings (rev M). It was not clear why he did so. The electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, structural, and civil drawings that he used did not appear to include contract revisions. On the accounting side, he had Dura's progress claims no. 25 and 26, which he used to value the works.

168 Hue's objection was that these documents carried into Mr Faifer's assessments Dura's desired assumptions and, due to Mr Faifer's want of independent inquiry, such assumptions infected his expressed opinions. For example, Dura did not provide Mr Faifer with any of the reports and other documents that raised the issue of defective and non-compliant work, which inflated the assessments of the value of Dura's works. Another example of a want of independent inquiry is that although proffered as an expert to participate in a joint conclave with Messrs Atchison and Bonaldi, Mr Faifer neither sought nor received copies of their reports. He 'participated' in the joint conclave without having read their reports. The joint conclave was ineffective. Apart from casting doubts on the reliability of his methodology, Mr Faifer's approach has led to Dura failing to prove that the documents on which he bases his opinions are sufficiently similar to the relevant documents to render his opinions of value.

169 It was difficult to accept Mr Faifer as impartial. From the outset, his reports displayed a lack of objectivity that ought to have caused concern to Dura's advisers. His concluding opinion in his report was not an opinion drawn from specialist knowledge; it was an inappropriate expression of reactions like 'amazement' and of speculative belief in Hue's improper motives. Such observations call into question the proper basis in the witness' expert knowledge for his opinions that may amount to nothing more than a combination of speculation, inference, and personal views dressed up with specious authority, subverting the court's task of legitimate fact-finding. It appears that this was the message that Dura wanted to hear. Such observations provide no assistance to the court in the independent assessment of the opinions proffered and carry no weight.

170 The specialised knowledge of quantity surveyors includes the ability to read and understand architectural drawings and contract specifications.[35] The first question to Mr Faifer required that he identify the contract documents. When cross-examined on his answer, it was clear that he had not correctly identified the contract documents and had, in some cases, worked from inappropriate documents. A lack of rigorous method in using architectural drawings was most evident when Mr Faifer was cross-examined about enhancements. His evidence identifying what he said were Hue's enhancements of the project works undermined any confidence I may have had in the reliability of his opinions. The proper starting point was the contract set of drawings (rev P). Mr Faifer used the tender set (rev M). The obvious fact that the tender set was inappropriate for the task was reluctantly conceded to the cross-examiner, following various unsatisfactory responses proffered in defence of his poor decision to use the tender set and his refusal to rework his conclusions appropriately when that became evident to him.

171 Mr Faifer marked up a copy of drawings from the tender set on his inspection of the works annotating the differences between the 'as constructed' building and those drawings. He asserted that the correct comparison between what was built and what should have been built under the contract set was later undertaken, but this assertion did not withstand close analysis. The errors that were exposed would not have occurred had Mr Faifer asked for, and used, the contract drawings. Mr Faifer could have directly compared the set of current amended contract drawings, including the enhancements, as used by Liquid Lines with the amended contract drawings as at 23 October 2006 that incorporated all approved changes during the project. Mr Faifer admitted that is what should have happened but explained that Dura did not provide him with such sets until after he had completed his report. Aware of their existence, he stubbornly stuck to his report in evidence, defending its conclusions, and asserting adherence to the Expert Code when he knew there were relevant inquiries that he had not made.

172 The cross-examiner, by taking Mr Faifer to numerous instances of inconsistencies in his assessment of enhancements, won the concession that his starting point, the tender drawings, varied significantly from both the initial contract set and the set to which Dura was obliged to work by 23 October 2006. Each set had been available to Mr Faifer before he attended joint expert conclaves and gave evidence. The margin for error was increased by using the tender drawings and resulting errors would necessarily operate in Dura's favour. It is disappointing that Mr Faifer was unaware that, filed well in advance of the trial and the expert conclaves, were a witness statement of Mr Chu that dealt exhaustively with the enhancements and a witness statement of Mr Chan that listed, with electronic copies, all of Dura construction drawings current to its departure from the site and the Liquid Lines construction drawings. That Dura's solicitor's conduct may have deepened Mr Faifer's predicament does not assist him.

173 In the result Mr Faifer's assessment of the costs incurred by Hue in carrying out re-instatement works is unreliable and I reject it. Mr Faifer's opinion about the differences between the quality and standard of the fixtures, fittings, and finishes to the re-instatement works and the Dura contract works is not, in my view, reliable. Likewise, when asked to identify with precision any changes to the layout or configuration of the units or common areas and/or facades and any other change(s) from that called up under the contract, drawings and specifications between Dura and Hue, including variations to 23 October 2006, I cannot accept his opinion as reliable. Thus it follows that I do not accept his assessment of the additional costs incurred by Hue due to the enhancements.

174 Mr Faifer expressed his opinion that the standard of Dura's building works to 23 October 2006 was 'satisfactory and in keeping with the specification and accepted industry standards'. Hue contended that Mr Faifer could never fairly express an appropriate opinion because he was left ignorant of the Visual Audit Report, the Underlying Works Audit Report, and all of the reports provided or available to Dura as set out in Schedule 1 of the Defence & Counterclaim, including the Bonaldi and Atchison reports of early 2010. Mr Faifer does not identify the detail of the specification with which the works were conforming. He formed a view in May 2007 and in April 2011 and saw no reason to change it. Dura invited me to accept that Mr Faifer was an experienced forensic expert witness in courts and tribunals, arbitrations and adjudications. Whatever be the content of that experience, I am satisfied that in the context of this proceeding Mr Faifer, and those instructing him, were aware that there was a very substantial volume of material that ought to have been analysed before expressing that opinion in 2011. In this instance, Mr Faifer's references to understanding his overriding duty to assist the court, by a supplementary report if necessary, is mere lip service and his expression of adherence to the Expert Code is found wanting.

175 When I examine his views in May 2007, other concerns arise. His course of reasoning was to assert that when he viewed the works prior to 23 October 2006, Mr Faifer did not observe any 'glaring physical errors, omissions or defects in procedure, materials or workmanship employed in the works that would give rise to the wholesale internal demolition, gutting and deconstruction that subsequently took place'. Mr Faifer's report of his inspection of plasterboard issues was brief, conceding the possibility of 'isolated defects'. He gave no evidence of an awareness of the specified tolerances and fixing methods, or of measuring plasterboard to determine whether the specified tolerances were achieved. When Mr Faifer opined that the 'system of wall and ceiling fixtures, wall furring channels, ceiling suspension systems including service area bulkheads, internal metal stud walls and the like were all of an acceptable norm and standard', the acceptable norm and standard that he referred to has not been established, either factually or as the relevant contractual specification to which Dura had agreed to build.

176 What compounds the unreliability of Mr Faifer's methodology is his acknowledgement of the existence of the notices to show cause. Dura did not provide these documents to him and he gives no evidence of having sought instructions about the issues that arise from them. It would be plain to a person of Mr Faifer's claimed experience that court proceedings about such notices would generate detailed and careful consideration of the issues of defects, superintendent's directions and the demolition that had amazed and shocked him. Yet he opined that the builder had initiated a system (that he never identified) of working through these concerns when the owner alerted the superintendent and issued other instructions to his representatives. I am unclear about the precise assumed factual basis for these views, but whatever it be, I am satisfied that no basis in fact for such views was established. I do not accept that any assumed factual basis for Mr Faifer's opinions concerning defects, standards of workmanship or superintendent's directions was established. I do not accept that he made all reasonable or appropriate inquiries. I am not satisfied that he considered his obligations as an expert in this respect. Nor do I accept that there is, in respect of such opinions, a transparent course of reasoning from his assumed factual basis, by application of specialised knowledge, to the opinions he expressed. Mr Faifer's opinions concerning defects, standards of workmanship, the issue of Hue's partial demolition of Dura's works, or the superintendent's directions are inadmissible.

177 The other aspect of Mr Faifer's opinions is costing and Hue again raises concerns with his methodology. When calculating the cost of the Liquid Lines reinstatement works, Mr Faifer's methodology is to start from Dura's progress claim 26, thereby expressly including the provisional sum claim for scaffolding in his calculations. His figures include the item '$804,346 for PC Sum Scaffolds'. Although Dura knew that this figure was false, it did not so inform Mr Faifer, who did not question this amount. The figures from progress claim 26 are used as part of Mr Faifer's estimate of the 'estimated total of work removed', which figure is then used as part of his estimate of the 'total estimated reinstatement cost'.

178 The assumption made by Mr Faifer is that the figures of the progress claim 26 were in fact correct, for there is no evidence of any independent assessment of the progress claim that might validate Mr Faifer's starting point. The fact that several previous progress claims were adjusted on adjudication is not alluded to and Mr Faifer issues no caution that without acceptable justification of the assumed starting point for these calculations, his assumption carries the prospect of transmitted error. In my view an expert acting competently under the Expert Code should caution the court about such matters. There ought to be a collateral benefit - assisting parties to litigation to appreciate the risks of adverse outcomes. Avoidance of unnecessary litigation assists the efficient use of scarce judicial resources. As I am not satisfied that all of the figures in progress claim 26 are correct, the assumed basis for Mr Faifer's estimated costs of the re-instatements works cannot be established. Dura attempted, unsuccessfully, to establish that fact through the evidence of Mr Maaser, which I will discuss elsewhere.

179 Next, I will state my observations about the key lay witnesses for each side, referring principally to Messrs Hendricks, Maaser, and Brunner for Dura and Messrs Chu, Chan and Pozzebon for Hue.

180 The principal of Dura, Mr Richard Khor, attended court most days but did not give evidence. There were issues in the trial on which his evidence might have assisted Dura. One example was the scaffolding causes of action. Mr Chu gave evidence of conversations with Mr Khor that went uncontradicted. Another example was the initials and signatures to annotations on documents in relation to matters such as progress claims, the provision of a copy, in native form, of the MS Project file containing the construction program for the works, and responses to defects lists. Mr Hendricks and Mr Maaser were not always able to identify the author of instructions notated on correspondence to them that appeared to bear Mr Khor's initials. My impression was that, during cross-examination, Mr Hendricks and Mr Maaser, Dura's senior management, were trying to shield Mr Khor from involvement in some of Dura's business practices in relation to this contract. During the trial, the parties debated the form of the notices to show cause, when re-served. Mr Khor apparently had personal knowledge about this matter as he received these notices.

181 I am satisfied, from the documentary evidence, that Mr Khor was able to give evidence about matters in issue in the proceeding. The fact that he did not do so permits me to more readily infer that Dura's conduct was authorised from the top, particular examples being Dura refusing Mr Pozzebon's request for the MS Project program files and the provisional sum claim for scaffolding made in progress claims.

182 Unsatisfactory briefing of some of Dura's experts emerged as I have noted. I infer that each of Mr Khor, Mr Hendricks, and Mr Maaser provided instructions directly to experts or to Dura's solicitor. My impression is that Dura wanted the support of favourable expert opinion in this dispute, as any litigant would, but assisted this outcome by a selective briefing process that the experts appeared to accept.

183 Dura's senior witness was Mr Hendricks, its construction manager. He was in charge of the project, reporting to Mr Khor. His evidence in chief, comprised in part by a 'reply' statement, put considerable personal criticism of Mr Pozzebon that I reject. For example, Mr Hendricks suggested that when he asked Mr Pozzebon why he had rejected a variation, Mr Pozzebon responded with comments like 'I don't have to explain, just do it or you'll be in breach of contract'. Mr Hendricks invited me to accept that Mr Pozzebon's abrasive personality and uncompromising manner in their dealings soured the relations between Dura and Hue. The cross-examiner of Mr Pozzebon neither established these propositions nor exposed that abrasive personality and uncompromising manner. In evidence was much correspondence between Mr Pozzebon and Mr Hendricks as well as site meeting minutes that contradicts that contention. I reject it.

184 Mr Hendricks' evidence was mostly broad assertion when detail was required. As I will later explain, the standard of workmanship of Dura's subcontractors was poor, and obviously so, documented in reports of consultants, and in many photographs. Mr Hendricks told me that in September 2006, Dura's work was in accordance with the requirements of the contract, the project was getting close to practical completion, and Dura had rectified virtually all defects. Mr Hendricks was unable to substantiate that assertion from personal knowledge of the project. Probably, its experts misled Dura, by their support for such claims. Dura invited me to accept Mr Hendricks' broad assertion that its senior managers on site and its subcontractors were competent and reliable because he said so. I would be prepared to accept Mr Hendricks assertion that he could not fault Mr Brunner's management, but only because having not properly supervised Mr Brunner, Mr Hendricks was not in a position to fault what he did. When cross-examined, Mr Brunner acknowledged that he did not adequately perform his role and that Dura's 'quality control system' was inadequate. No proper basis emerged for Mr Hendricks' assertion. Mr Hendricks described Mr Maaser as a very good manager, careful and honest. I reject this description. I am satisfied, for reasons explained elsewhere, that Mr Maaser made numerous statutory declarations, upon which Dura demanded payment from Hue that both Mr Hendricks and Mr Maaser knew were false.

185 Dura's administration of the contract was another matter on which Mr Hendricks was content to opine broadly. His assertion that Dura appropriately resourced the site at all times is not credible. Dura avoided scrutiny of its resources on the project. I am satisfied that Mr Hendricks denied Mr Pozzebon a copy of the MS Project program in native format to avoid a proper assessment of Dura's EOT claims. It suited Dura to resource the project for practical completion well after the time that it had bargained for. I am also satisfied that Mr Hendricks understood the precise commercial relationship between the scaffolding supplier, Concept Hiring Services Pty Ltd, and Dura and was complicit in the claims that were made on Hue for the scaffolding provisional sum. Mr Hendricks said in evidence that all of Dura's submitted claims were genuine and reasonable, intending that Hue accept that assessment not just in relation to the progress payment claims, but also to variations and EOT claims.

186 Much of Mr Hendricks' evidence appeared disconnected from the reality of the project as others explained it. I find his evidence, except to the extent that it is consistent with documents, to be unreliable and I disregard it.

187 Dura's project manager Mr Maaser reported to Mr Hendricks and Mr Khor, and was Dura's primary witness, giving evidence on many issues. Moreover, he played an active role with Dura's experts, exercising Dura's influence with some of them, including Mr Browning and Mr Shah. I reject Mr Maaser's evidence for the following reasons.

188 I am satisfied that Mr Maaser knew of and participated in Dura's decision to deny Mr Pozzebon electronic programs. He did not frankly admit to this decision under cross-examination when he ought to have done so. Mr Maaser was reticent to identify the signatures of Mr Hendricks and Mr Khor, directing him not to provide a copy of the program in the form required by the superintendent and his attempts to feign ignorance about where his instructions were coming from were unconvincing.

189 Mr Maaser attempted, stubbornly, to defend Dura's progress claim procedure. I will explain what occurred in due course but, again, a frank admission of the shortcomings in the progress claim procedure was the honest response. Mr Maaser sought to avoid directly lying about this issue, by avoiding a genuine and straightforward answer when pressed by the cross-examiner. Ultimately, Mr Maaser suggested that AS 2124-1992 permitted the contractor to take trade discounts but could not explain why, if permitted, the actual amount paid to Concept was not revealed to Hue and explained in that way.[36] Mr Maaser himself made some of the submitted statutory declarations. He took from Mr Hendricks one statutory declaration that accompanied a progress payment claim when he knew that he was not qualified to do so and, more significantly, that it did not reveal the true cost of the scaffolding to Hue.

190 Mr Maaser's inadequate grasp of the detail of the project when in the witness box was evident. Mr Maaser produced, as part of his evidence-in-chief, a substantial table containing detail about individual issues, defects, variations, extension of time claims and the like. It was a statement in reply to Mr Pozzebon's witness statement. I do not accept it as the work of the witness alone. I am satisfied that Mr Maaser was assisted in compiling the statements that he adopted as his evidence in chief. Mr Maaser's inability to descend into detail when pressed was in marked contrast to the evidence of Mr Chu and Mr Pozzebon when cross-examined. On occasions, Mr Maaser sought refuge from the cross-examiner by recollection of a document that he could not immediately produce. Mr Maaser was usually unable to produce any document to the effect 'recollected', after being given an opportunity to do. I could not determine reliably what parts of Mr Maaser's witness statement were his own work.

191 Mr Maaser took up Mr Hendricks' personal attack on Mr Pozzebon, asserting that Mr Pozzebon's manner and attitude was poor. As a result, according to Mr Maaser, site meetings became dysfunctional. Mr Maaser's asserted involvement in the project increased partly because of that dysfunctional relationship and partly to deal with an increase in paperwork directed at Dura by Mr Pozzebon. Mr Maaser asserted that over time Hue brought in more and more consultants to check Dura's work, examining the project with a fine toothcomb for anything that might be called a defect. I reject these contentions.

192 Finally, consistently with the way the case had been opened to me - that care was needed to identify accurately where and when photographs and videos were taken and exactly what was being represented - Mr Maaser initially deflected the cross-examiner with like comments. As the cross-examiner carefully put photographs, specifications, installation instructions from manufacturers, and like material to Mr Maaser, he drifted from this script. Concessions such as that Dura had installed a different ceiling fixing system only adjustable with packers in areas that had been plastered over so that the fixing system could only be identified by removing the plaster, were reluctantly made. I will return to Mr Maaser's concessions when discussing the defects later in this judgment.

193 I am satisfied that Mr Maaser, with Mr Khor watching on, wanted me to accept the false propositions that:

(a) Dura's work was of an acceptable standard; and

(b) the litany of complaints from Hue were the product of Mr Pozzebon's irrational behaviour, and the incessant intrusive presence, and photography by Mr Chu and Mr Wong that sought to elevate incomplete work into defective work.

Another alternative explanation, to avoid admitting poor supervision of subcontractors and a lack of any quality control, was that the demolition of the plasterboard, in January to March 2007 had been brutal and was the cause of many apparent defects that had been later photographed or otherwise recorded. Dura invited me to accept that defects, evidenced in this way, were not present in the project when Dura left the site.

194 Mr Brunner was Dura's site supervisor. When cross-examined he too appeared to have a poor recollection, although he stated that his extensive reply statement had been made shortly prior to the trial starting. Mr Brunner only reluctantly admitted that he prepared his reply statement with help from Dura's solicitor, Mr Noble. Mr Brunner said he prepared some of the reply statement. I was unable to identify what parts of his statement were his recollections and what parts the solicitor prepared. I am not satisfied that his reply statement, although adopted as true and correct by Mr Brunner, is reliably the witness' own evidence.

195 Mr Brunner's statement, like that of Mr Maaser, included a substantial table of about 130 pages in fine print. At times, when confronted with incorrect statements in the table, Mr Brunner stated that the table was not his work. Mr Brunner said both he and Mr Noble prepared parts of the table - Mr Brunner could not say how much of it Mr Noble prepared. Again, in each case, neither Mr Brunner nor Mr Maaser could dispel the cross-examiner's suggestion that significant parts of their tables were not the work of the witness.

196 As with Mr Maaser, the cross-examiner confronted Mr Brunner with evidence of defective work. The cross-examiner took Mr Brunner through four PowerPoint presentations in relation to plasterboard defects, penetrations defects, fire-rating defects, and structural defects. Regarding most of these photographs, Mr Brunner was able to identify where, and when, the particular photograph was taken and reluctantly admitted, or implausibly evaded admitting, that the photograph demonstrated that work had not been performed in a proper and workmanlike manner. He also conceded that, in many cases, the defect was concealed, undiscoverable until after the removal of plasterboard sheeting. Mr Brunner, too, was unable to maintain Dura's position that photographs illustrated incomplete work photographed at an early stage, damage occasioned during demolition, or the depiction of a state of affairs that would only be a defect if its position on site was correctly located.[37]

197 A number of witnesses called by Dura were not cross-examined. By agreement, the rule in Browne v Dunn did not apply and on the basis that each party would present its case - its evidence, cross-examination, and submissions, both interlocutory and final - within 17 sitting days. I am satisfied that Hue put its case to the key witnesses for Dura and that, in assessing the whole of the evidence, I need not, and will not, attribute particular importance to the fact that some witnesses were not cross-examined. In final submissions, counsel for Dura did not contend otherwise.

198 I found Messrs Chu and Pozzebon to be honest and meticulous witnesses, each demonstrating, when cross-examined, a good grasp of the issues in the proceeding and the detail of the project. Mr Chu was familiar with the terms of Hue's contract. He was also familiar with the project and the defects identified in it. His grasp of detail was not only substantial but withstood cross-examination. His recollection of events, and of detail, was reliable, consistent with other sources. Further I formed the view that Mr Chu was not just an honest and knowledgeable witness, he was fair and measured in his responses to cross-examination.

199 Senior counsel for Dura challenged Mr Chu extensively in cross-examination. Mr Chu fended off suggestions that that he was 'on the back of his consultants' to make sure they identified every item of non-compliance in order to obtain assessments that might form the basis of a notice to show cause. I accept Mr Chu's rejection of this proposition. I found him to be a careful person who was not only making a large investment but administering the project for a trust. That he sought to protect Hue's rights under its contract was his duty and his entitlement. As I will explain, the course of the project quite reasonably engendered in Mr Chu concerns that Dura was not meeting contractual standards that Hue was paying for, and a sub-standard building appeared likely. Mr Chu's benchmark was, quite properly, the contract and not some other subjective requirement. In substance, his evidence was that he was trying to assist Dura to achieve contractual compliance, believing that as a unit holder in the trust, Dura had a common goal with Hue. I formed the view that Hue gave significant opportunity to Dura to complete the contract that, in part, led to the complexity of the dispute.

200 In respect of some defects, in particular, plasterwork, concerns about safety motivated Mr Chu. Mr Chu rejected Dura's suggestion that he decided to remove all the plasterboard prior to opening up Dura's works because he wanted to enhance the design, essentially at Dura's expense. I accept his rejection of the suggestion that the units were unsaleable in the contracted design. He considered the units difficult to sell because of the defects that were present, particularly Dura's failure to achieve the specified tolerances in plasterboard finishes. I am satisfied that Mr Chu required the opening up of the works to be carried out carefully with regular review by his consultants before demolition proceeded to the extent that it did. I am also satisfied that Mr Chu honestly took appropriate and reasonable steps to separate out the cost of the enhancements to the design from the costs charged to Dura's account, a matter about which I shall say more later.

201 I accept the evidence of Mr Chu and prefer his evidence to the evidence of Dura's witnesses.

202 Like Mr Chu, Mr Pozzebon faced a strong challenge in cross-examination. Dura put that he was abrasive and, on site, engendered conflict, while bombarding Dura with 'paperwork' concerning their performance. On Dura's instructions, it was his attitude that caused the deterioration in the relations between contractor and owner. He made no such impression on me when giving evidence, particularly under cross-examination. His response to counsel's questions, like his contemporaneous correspondence, was appropriately measured and considered, and did not display an abrasive or aggressive attitude. For reasons that will become clear, there are more compelling explanations for that deterioration in relations between the parties that lie in the quality of the work being performed, their dealings over progress claims and the issue of the program, and each of those matters warrants the conclusion that it was Dura, not Hue, that was difficult to deal with.

203 Dura put to Mr Chu that Mr Pozzebon, once he became superintendent never certified any moneys payable to Dura, inviting an inference of bias by the superintendent towards Dura. It is an invitation that I refuse. Mr Chu's denial was proper, as Dura's instruction to put this assertion about Mr Pozzebon to Mr Chu was misconceived. What emerged was a rather shallow attack by Dura to divert attention from at least two matters, the absence of its chief executive Mr Khor from the witness box to explain many aspects of Dura's conduct and the lack of a credible response to Hue's allegations that Dura's work was defective and delayed.

205 The other principal witness for Hue was Mr Chan, its architect and, for much of the time its contract superintendent. Mr Chan's evidence was not satisfactory. His recollection of events was poor but he was prepared to make that concession. From the witness box, Mr Chan offered the court little assistance, but on the other hand, I accept that his contemporaneous documents - drawings, instructions, letters, site minutes and like documents - were generally accurate and reliable. I have relied on Mr Chan's documents. Where a document shows that a defect was observed, I accept that Mr Chan recognised the presence of work that was non-compliant with drawings, specifications, or proper building practice. That, when cross-examined, he could not recall specific details about a defect, such as in which units it was observed or whether it was remediated before or after the service of the notices to show cause, does not cast any doubt on his contemporaneous observations, as documented.

206 Hue also based its claim on photographs and videos, many of which Mr Wong took, and proved in evidence. Mr Wong was Hue's project manager. There were many photographs taken, and tendered in evidence, during the project. Dura submitted that I should exercise care to establish when, and where, photographs were taken counselling caution in using the photographs as evidence of contractual breach by it. I have accepted that warning. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that in many cases the purposes of the photographs is to document an example of a defect type, particularly when used by a consultant in a report. Hue, or its consultants, did not usually intend that any particular set of photos provide a complete record of defects at any one time. On other occasions, such as the audits, Hue intended to document a state of affairs. In all cases, witnesses have given evidence of their observations, and have used photos to illustrate or explain conditions on site for the benefit of those not there at the time. Mr Wong took most of the photos, with either Mr Chu and/or Mr Alexander also present. In evaluating the evidence of defects, I have not just relied on photos. Each of Mr Wong, Mr Chu, and Mr Alexander gave evidence that they saw the defects illustrated in photos. The consultants engaged by Hue during the project who gave evidence stated that they saw defective work. The consultant's contemporaneous reports were also illustrated with photographs demonstrating categories or types of defects. Site meeting minutes and other documents also refer to defects. It is from all of these sources that I draw evidence for the findings I will later express. Experts also used the photographs and videos to illustrate their reports. I accept the evidence of Mr Wong, Mr Chu, and Mr Alexander, and of the various consultants that Hue called, that their personal contemporaneous observations are illustrated by photographs. I prefer the evidence of personal observations to the debates that occurred between the experts, when later examining photographs, as to exactly what was depicted in a photograph. Dura's cross examination of witnesses, such as Mr Borgia, Mr Edwards, Mr Hanlon, and Mr Garagounis, did not persuade me that there was inaccuracy, or exaggeration, in their observations or their contemporaneous reports to Hue.

207 To place the issues that need to be determined in this proceeding in perspective, I will say a little more about the course of the project and the events that unfolded. There are several revealing themes that I will trace through the project being:

(a) issues about programming and extensions of time;

(b) the provisional sum allowance for scaffolding;

(c) quality assurance systems and the rectification of defects and incomplete work in progress; and,

(d) inspections of the work and the documentation of defects.

208 In July 2004, during contract negotiations, Mr Chu met in the offices of the project architect with Messrs Khor and Hendricks, among others. Mr Hendricks told the meeting that Dura had a quote of $308,000 for scaffolding and cranage, which might possibly be reduced. When Mr Hendricks later wrote to Mr Chu regarding the provisional sum adjustment, he made a total allowance of $175,000 for scaffolding, access equipment and cranage.

209 In November 2004, when negotiating the proposed building contract, Mr Khor told Mr Chu that he wanted to include the scaffolding works for the project as a $175,000 provisional sum item. Mr Khor said that if the east and west elevations of the building were rendered quickly, the cost of the scaffolding would be less. Mr Chu agreed the scaffolding could be a provisional sum in the contract. I am satisfied that he relied on Mr Khor's representation that $175,000 would be an accurate and sufficient amount. Mr Chu explained that he relied on Mr Khor's experience, knowledge of the project, and Dura's stake as a unit holder in the Trust. On 18 November 2004, Mr Hendricks wrote to Hue, in confirmation of Mr Chu's discussion with Mr Khor, attaching a summary of provisional sums that included $175,000 for scaffolding, access equipment, and cranage. Part E of the contract lists the provisional sum for scaffolding, access equipment, and cranage at $175,000 and annexes Mr Chu's confirming response to Mr Hendricks' letter of 18 November 2004 in Part H of the contract.

210 I am satisfied that Dura represented to Hue that $175,000 was a reasonable pre-estimate of the scaffolding and related costs, which Dura had calculated with reasonable care. Dura represented as much to Hue in the course of negotiations in order to induce Hue to enter into a contract in which scaffolding costs would be a provisional sum item. Such an item might be thought an uncommon candidate for a provisional cost allowance.

211 A matter that Hue and Dura discussed during negotiations, which later became relevant in the dispute, was the ventilation system for enclosed toilets. By Australian Standard AS 1668.2, enclosed toilets require an exhaust system. Hue specified an Odourvac system, but Dura warned that it would be expensive. Dura and Hue agreed to delete from the specifications an Odourvac system for all toilets and it was not included in the price. The issue that would later arise was whether the contract required without any variation installation of standard ventilation in toilets. Mr Chu considered that Dura was required to install the Odourvac ceiling exhaust fan with only the Odourvac toilet connection removed from the contract works.

212 Mr Pozzebon became aware of the Odourvac issue, once engaged on the project. Mr Chu asked him to resolve it. In May 2006, several architect's instructions recognised the deletion of the Odourvac system as such and the possibility of approval of a ceiling exhaust fan alternate to the Odourvac fan. In June 2006, Mr Chu observed that although plasterboard ceilings were going up in bathrooms, there were no ceiling exhaust fans installed. Dura disputed any contractual obligation to install any ceiling exhaust fans. The mechanical consultants maintained that the BCA required the builder to install an exhaust system, while the drawings still showed the Odourvac system, despite its agreed exclusion from the works.

213 Mr Pozzebon declared an ambiguity/discrepancy under cl 8.1(b) of the contract and on 17 July 2006, he directed that Dura observe the architect's instructions to install exhaust fans. The mechanical services consultant reported on 18 August 2006 that the direction had not been followed.

A. Provisional sum claims made for scaffolding in Progress Claims

214 Dura submitted progress claims to the superintendent on a monthly basis setting out a summary of the percentage of work performed broken down into trade items. WT Partnership (Mr Thomas) and the superintendent then assessed each claim. In the early stages of the contract, Mr Maaser and Mr Thomas agreed each claim, following an inspection. Dura submitted a tax invoice for that sum with a statutory declaration. Dura submitted 26 progress claims. On 23 October 2006, Dura's last day on site, it submitted the final progress claim. In the later stages of the project, disagreement developed, leading to adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Vic) 2002.

215 In January 2006, Dura's claim regarding the scaffolding provisional sum exceeded the specified allowance. Progress claim 17 claimed $210,883.55 for the scaffolding provisional sum. On 7 February 2006, Mr Hendricks explained to Mr Chan that at the time of tender, Dura used estimates, as scaffolding quotes had not been prepared. Mr Chan requested an accurate documented estimate of the expected maximum scaffolding expenditure. Soon after, Mr Chu asked Mr Khor to explain why the scaffolding provisional sum was 'blowing out'. Mr Khor said that his estimator had made a mistake. This was not a candid response.

216 Progress claim 18 followed on 27 February 2006 and included $313,364.74 for the scaffolding provisional sum. Not having a response to his earlier request for information, Mr Chan declined to approve the contract sum adjustment until Dura provided information stating how construction had differed significantly from the information available at the tender date. On 16 March 2006, Mr Chan was still awaiting the explanation of how Dura intended to minimise the cost of the scaffolding in the future.

217 Scaffolding was an issue for Mr Pozzebon in March 2006 on his initial site inspection of the project and he raised a number of concerns with Mr Chu, including that:

• extensive scaffolding was being used to facilitate the erection of slabs and provide fall protection;
• scaffolding was being used to provide access to upper levels instead of installing stairs throughout the building;
• Dura was using perimeter scaffolding as temporary handrails for balconies at a possible cost to Hue; and,
• the scaffold loading platform was being used to remove formwork.

218 It is clear Dura's scaffolding expense was rapidly escalating. Progress claim 19, included the scaffolding provisional sum claim of $388,341.31. On 18 April 2006, Mr Pozzebon requested a scope of works, layout plans, construction program, and original subcontractor's quotes. Progress claim 20 included the scaffolding provisional sum at $477,597.27. On 4 May 2006, Mr Pozzebon, still waiting for requested information, told Dura there would be no further assessment of works. Later that day Mr Pozzebon faxed Mr Hendricks confirming that there had been no approval of scaffolding provisional sums. Hue noted that Dura had warranted that the provisional sum allowance was adequate for the whole project. Progress claim 21 included the scaffolding provisional sum claim at $547,254.85, and by progress claim 22, Dura claimed $617,152.76 for scaffolding. Due to the dispute about payment, Dura suspended all work associated with scaffolding.

219 Progress claims 20, 21, and, later, 25 each went to adjudication, usually with significant debate about the extent of allowances for provisional sums. The provisional sum allowance in progress claim 20, claimed at $595,000 was allowed at $98,000 in progress claim 21, the total provisional sum, claimed at $900,000, was allowed at $516,000 and progress claim 25 claimed at $2.2 million was allowed at approximately $800,000. Under the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic), approximately $1.41 million was paid into trust. The adjudication processes also brought in solicitors providing advice, and other services, to the parties.

220 On 30 June 2006, Mr Chu again wrote to Mr Khor seeking copies of all quotations and tender documents between Dura and subcontractors/potential subcontractors regarding the provisional sum for scaffolding, access equipment, and cranage. Dura's response, from Mr Shane Cody the company secretary, requested Mr Chu to direct any future enquiries through the superintendent (JCB). On 6 July 2006, Mr Chu spoke to Mr Khor on site and raised the issue of Dura's failure to provide the original scaffolding correspondence. Mr Khor responded that there was no letting contract for the scaffolding. Dura had never known a precise cost for scaffolding. Mr Khor suggested that Hue should have been better advised by its consultants to query Dura's request for a provisional sum allowance. Again, I am not satisfied, for reasons that will emerge, that Mr Khor's response was candid. Mr Khor chose not to defend it. I am satisfied that Dura's representation to Hue - that $175,000 was a reasonable pre-estimate of the scaffolding and related costs that Dura had calculated with reasonable care - was false.

221 By late July 2006, the time for removal of the scaffolding was approaching. Dura submitted a time sheet for its removal. Progress claim 23, on 26 July 2006, included a scaffolding provisional sum claim at $672,633.10. Mr Pozzebon noted that Dura had chosen a costly method for dismantling the scaffolding. The industry standard was to negotiate a fixed lump labour cost to erect and dismantle scaffolding. The reasons for this approach emerged during cross-examination.

222 On 28 July 2006, Mr Pozzebon analysed the scaffolding provisional sum claims. Dura still had not provided copies of any orders placed, scope, or scaffolding layouts, or superintendent's directions. Mr Pozzebon used an audit of documents attached to progress claims by Mr Thomas, an independent analysis by Kwikform, the program submitted by Dura on 23 December 2004, the contract, site observations, the architectural and structural drawings, and his knowledge of industry standards. Mr Pozzebon recommended to Hue that it adopt the following provisional sum components:

• Scaffolding - maximum of $170,000 (labour and materials) with $140,606 expenditure;
• Cranage - maximum of $15,000 with $6,580 expenditure to 25 June 2006; and
• Access equipment - maximum of $10,000 with nil expenditure to 25 June 2006.

Mr Pozzebon wrote to Mr Hendricks explaining his assessment. During this process, Mr Pozzebon observed that invoices submitted by Dura in support of amounts claimed were clearly stamped 'do not pay'. Dura's claims included costs not properly attributable to the scaffolding provisional sum, for example, cranage costs related to the movement of subcontractors' plant and materials on and around the site and other building related lifts, rubbish chutes, supports for basement, and amounts in respect of road management.

223 Mr Pozzebon also considered that Dura's scaffolding use was inefficient and he identified a number of respects that exposed that inefficiency. His concerns included that inappropriate works sequencing caused scaffold reconfiguring and incurred labour costs, failure to install internal stair rises as structure was erected resulting in increased scaffold hire time, and the construction of non-structural walls creating a need to use scaffolding to overcome the resulting access restriction.

224 Progress claim 24, on 26 August 2006 included a scaffolding provisional sum claim of $720,536.49. Progress claim 25, on 26 September 2006, included a scaffolding provisional sum claim of $760,720.91. Progress claim 26, submitted on 23 October 2006, claimed $805,346.90 for scaffolding.

225 By progress claim 26, Hue had taken over the works. In assessing that claim, Mr Pozzebon allowed $157,000, paid by a payment certificate dated 23 November 2006. He calculated this figure by assuming that Dura's warranted sum of $175,000 for the scaffolding provisional sum was reasonable and he apportioned this amount across the 40 weeks of the contract when Dura had anticipated using the scaffold at a rate of $4,500 per week. Mr Pozzebon, drawing on his experience, assessed that at least four further weeks of scaffolding (a total of $18,000) would be required in order to rectify the extensive defects in the façade.

226 Dura dropped the scaffolding to east and west elevations between May and July 2006. Dura commenced removal of scaffolding to the north and south façades in October 2006. The removal of scaffolding restricted access to inspect aspects of the project during the contentious period of September and October 2006. Access was too dangerous to inspect certain areas. During a site inspection on 28 September 2006, Mr Pozzebon observed at least two weeks of works remained on the north and south elevations. Dura prevented a closer examination as the external scaffolding was unsafe, as some ties had been removed. However, Mr Pozzebon observed workers using that scaffolding to install louvres to the north elevation. On 11 October 2006, on a site visit, Mr Pozzebon observed that Dura was dismantling the scaffolding on the south elevation from level 4 to level 3 and had already dismantled the scaffolding on the north elevation from level 4 to level 3. Those elevations had not been inspected. Mr Balsden of Dura told Mr Pozzebon that the scaffolding was being dropped to allow the installation of glazed louvers, and that it would then be re-erected to allow inspections.

227 Mr Maaser explained the progress claim procedure. Each progress claim was generated from the previous month's claim, with the percentages of work complete updated. Progress claims came in from subcontractors. Preliminaries were progressively claimed throughout the contract. Variations were included if completed. Once approved, variations were added to claims for the percentage of work completed. Provisional sums were claimed against the identified cost. Statutory declarations for payments of subcontractors' work under cl 43.2 were submitted. Invoices and costs were allocated by codes within Dura's accounting system, allowing payment of amounts claimed in progress payment to be confirmed for statutory declarations.

228 Dura claimed scaffolding costs in progress claims by reference to 'proforma invoices'. The scaffolder, Concept Hiring Services Pty Ltd, provided detailed monthly invoices for scaffold hire that included a charge for rent, freight, stamp duty, and GST. Dura claimed the total amount on the invoice in the progress payment claim, with GST added. Mr Maaser conceded that the consistent double counting of GST then in the progress claims was 'a minor error'. Dura also conceded that scaffolding costs included costs attributable to a job at a school in Point Cook. The errors carry, uncorrected, into Dura's claims in the proceeding.

229 The Concept Hiring Services invoices contained an ink stamp addition 'for information only, do not pay this invoice'. Either Mr Maaser or Mr Hendricks submitted a statutory declaration with the progress payment. The declaration was that all monies that are due and payable to subcontractors and their workers in respect of their employment on the work under the contract have been paid. The document is a formal statutory declaration acknowledged to be true and correct, with an understanding of the consequences of making a false declaration. Shane Coady, a certified public accountant working for Dura, witnessed most declarations, although in some cases Mr Maaser witnessed Mr Hendricks' signature.

230 Dura in fact never paid the amounts claimed in the progress payments and verified in the statutory declarations as paid to Concept Hire. None of Dura's witnesses frankly admitted to this deception when confronted with it in cross-examination. What emerged was the suggestion of some kind of commercial arrangement was resulting in a 30% discount being offered by Concept Hire to Dura, which was not being passed on to Hue. Mr Maaser said he never saw the actual statements upon which Concept was paid but he knew that they existed. Mr Maaser sought to maintain that he could not say for sure whether Mr Hendricks or Mr Khor were aware of these arrangements. Mr Hendricks was equally vague in his evidence.

231 Dura has claimed over $800,000 for scaffolding against a provisional sum assessment of $175,000. I am satisfied that Dura set out, not only to mislead Hue about its scaffolding provisional sum claims, but to mislead the court as well. Each of Mr Maaser and Mr Hendricks was not prepared to frankly inform the court of the arrangement with Concept Hire. The scaffolding costs were clearly a pleaded issue in the trial. His witness statement served prior to trial disclosed the results of Mr Thomas's audit, yet Dura did not address the issue in evidence-in-chief. Under cross-examination, its witnesses were evasive. Ultimately, Mr Maaser suggested that AS 2124-1992 allowed the contractor to take trade discounts. If a permitted trade discount was the proper explanation of this arrangement, Dura could have revealed the actual amount paid to Concept. Rather, Dura preferred to slowly poison its relationship with Hue. That decision demonstrated, at best, a serious want of proper commercial morality undermining the statutory declaration system. I am satisfied that both Mr Maaser and Mr Hendricks knew exactly what was going on. They could have readily established from Dura's accounting system the actual amounts paid. I infer that pressing the scaffolding costs claims in this manner was a practice Dura regards as acceptable. Were it otherwise, evidence from Mr Khor might have assisted Dura.

232 I have set out above how Hue's suspicions about the bona fides of the scaffolding claims gradually escalated. Dura did not receive the sums inappropriately verified by the false statutory declarations process. Providing justification for the discrepancy between its scaffolding provisional sum claims and the contractual allowance, would have exposed Dura's representations as false. The improper use of statutory declarations by Dura resulted in progress claims that were not for the amount properly due under the contract. The superintendent was entitled, under clauses 42 and 43 to evidence of the amount due by statutory declaration in such form as he might reasonably require. Dura avoided those requests and relations between the parties to the contract seriously deteriorated.

233 The false scaffolding claims infect Dura's money claims. Despite the clear admissions made during the course of the trial that there was no evidence available to justify the over-claimed scaffolding costs, Dura maintained into the trial that it had actually spent more than $800,000 on scaffolding costs. The consequences are significant. First, Dura's experts struggled with the discrepancy between the allowance and the claim, plainly uninformed of the Concept Hire 'arrangement'. Importantly, a discrepancy of the order of $700,000 infects progress claim 26, which is the foundation for Dura's valuation of its claim in the proceeding. Dura has not recalculated its claim, a matter to which I will later return.

234 Dura's attitude to the scaffolding claim also affects the view I take of other matters. It is consistent with its attitude in dealings with the superintendent over the construction program and EOT claims, another aspect of the relations between the parties that generated suspicion and dispute. The consistency, as will become apparent, is that in the case of the requests for copies of the program, Dura refused, quite unreasonably and in an effort to gain a commercial advantage, to observe the terms of the contract. Dura invited me to find that Hue had inappropriately used photographs and reports about defects, and to accept that defects apparent in photographs were the result of a 'brutal' demolition/dismantling of the works after Dura left the site. It invited me to accept that characteristics of work and materials described as defects were incomplete works to be corrected on completion. These invitations are based on the evidence of witnesses who have demonstrated a want of objectivity and candour in presenting an important aspect of Dura's claim. In due course I will examine the evidence of these matters, but without a predisposition to accept as plausible the motives and explanations subjectively advanced by Dura.

235 Building and construction contracts invariably make express provision for issues of time, reaching an agreed date for practical completion expeditiously, with procedures to allocate risk arising from the myriad issues that may affect that objective. AS 2124-1992 is no exception. Clause 33.1 requires that the contractor shall proceed with the works under the contract with due expedition and without delay. To that end, cl 33.2 of the contract obliges the contractor to submit to the superintendent for his approval, which may not be unreasonably withheld, a comprehensive construction program. The program shall show the sequence of activities that constitute the critical path. If the superintendent considers any part of the construction program to be unsatisfactory or to require amendment, the contractor must provide an amended program. The contractor is to execute the works in accordance with the latest approved program, meaning the construction program or amended construction program approved under cl 33.2. Both cl 33.2(e) and cl 44.2(b) reinforce that the provision of a program, satisfactory to the superintendent to demonstrate that the contractor will proceed with due expedition and without delay, is a significant aspect of the bargain.

33 PROGRESS AND PROGRAMMING OF THE WORKS

33.1 Rate of Progress

The Contractor shall proceed with the work under the Contract with due expedition and without delay .... The Contractor shall give the Superintendent reasonable advance notice of when the Contractor requires any information, materials, documents or instructions from the Superintendent or the Principal ... The Superintendent may direct in what order and at what time the various stages or parts of the work under the Contract shall be performed. If the Contractor can reasonably comply with the direction, the Contractor shall do so. If the Contractor cannot reasonably comply, the Contractor shall notify the Superintendent in writing, giving reasons ...

33.2 Construction Program

(a) Within fourteen days of the Date of Acceptance of Tender or the granting by the Principal to the Contractor of possession of the Site to commence the Works, the Contractor shall submit to the Superintendent for his approval a comprehensive construction program, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. The construction program shall show the sequence of activities which constitute the critical path.

(b) If the Superintendent considers that any part of the construction program is unsatisfactory or requires amendment the Contractor must provide an amended construction program within seven days of being requested to do so by the Superintendent or such additional time as the Superintendent may allow.

(c) The furnishing of the construction program or of a revised construction program or any approval of same shall not relieve the Contractor of any obligation under the Contract, including the obligation to refrain from, departing from any earlier Approved Program without reasonable cause.

(d) Notwithstanding this Clause 33 and the review or approval of any construction program or part thereof submitted to the Superintendent, the Contractor remains responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures employed in and about the execution of the Works.

(e) If the Contractor fails to submit and obtain the approval of the Superintendent such approval not to be unreasonably withheld to a construction program whether pursuant to Clause 33.2(a) or 33.2(b) and the failure continues for a continuous period exceeding 21 days after request by the Principal or Superintendent pursuant to this Clause 33 to provide or revise the construction program, the Principal shall be entitled to withhold payment of monies which but for this clause would have been due and payable until the approval has been obtained.

(f) The Works are to be executed according to the latest Approved Program. The Contractor shall be entitled to advance execution but shall notify the Superintendent in writing of any proposed change to the Approved Program.

(g) The Contractor shall provide a calendar relating work day numbers to calendar dates after accounting for holidays and work days per week.

237 On this project, the program became a major source of conflict. As Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts[38] explains, under the traditional contractual model the contractor was entirely responsible for completing the works by the completion date and the principal's remedy, should the contractor fail to complete, was in liquidated damages. Under the time and cost pressures of contemporary large scale construction, this model often gives way to contractual rights that provide for pro-active intervention by the principal. AS 2124-1992 has moved away from the traditional model that Hudson describes, although Dura would have it that it has not. To explain how cl 33 operates to regulate the progress and programming of the works I will first examine what happened on the project.

Was there approval of a comprehensive construction program?

238 Mr Maaser prepared the original construction program with assistance from Mr Hon Wong. Mr Maaser made the decisions regarding the construction methodology or sequence of works. Mr Wong, who entered data, recalled that the program identified a critical path coloured red when viewed within the software. Dura submitted it to Mr Chan for approval on 23 December 2004 in paper format. Dura revised and submitted to Mr Chan further versions of the program. Over time, it lost currency, as Hue granted extensions of time.

239 On 16 March 2006, Mr Chan noted the most recent version of the program in his possession was dated 26 October 2005. It showed a date for practical completion of 11 October 2006. Since that time, the superintendent had made seven requests for an updated construction program. Mr Chan reiterated the request. Then, on 22 March 2006 at a site meeting, Dura submitted a black and white paper copy of the program (revision 4) with a completion date of 7 December 2006.

240 On 4 April 2006, Mr Pozzebon rejected Dura's program and requested resubmission within seven days. Mr Pozzebon identified numerous inadequacies with the submitted program: lack of the critical path, not separately identifying each unit, failing detail outstanding provisional sums and prime cost items, not showing milestones for power connections to each floor, and not showing mechanical and electrical commissioning, fire testing, water and power meter installation, telephone cabling installation or certificate of occupancy. The 5 April 2006 site meeting noted the rejection of the program. A further program that Dura submitted on 11 April 2006 still did not show a critical path and separately identify units. The program did not indicate the expected completion date. The superintendent rejected it. On 4 May 2006, Mr Pozzebon reminded Dura that he was still waiting for the construction program as previously requested.

241 On 5 May 2006, Mr Maaser sent Mr Chan a printed copy of the program, with the critical path highlighted in red. Dura had only provided a sequence of works (shown floor-by-floor) for three apartments: two two-level apartments and one one-level apartment. In evidence, Mr Maaser accepted that the instructions to re-submit the program were clear, but he believed what they submitted was more than sufficient and Dura found the process of having to update the program to be disruptive and frustrating.

242 On 11 May 2006, Mr Pozzebon listed for Mr Hendricks all the issues that Hue saw with Dura's program. The list is extensive and includes problems such as:

• lift block and rails showing completion the following week, even though work on lifts had not yet started;
• critical tasks not seeming to be linked, meaning any critical paths on the program are illogical or non-existent;
• joinery on level 1 being completed before joinery on the ground floor; and
• painting of joinery being scheduled prior to sealing plasterboard.

The superintendent again rejected Dura's program and Mr Pozzebon requested that Dura resubmit within 14 days. He warned that any further delays in providing a correctly revised program would force the superintendent to enforce the contract. Some days later, Mr Chu followed up Mr Pozzebon's facsimile with a letter to Mr Khor. This is yet another instance of Mr Chu's attempts to make progress with the project by calling on his personal relationship with Mr Khor. Mr Khor promised a revised program within 14 days, adding that it would show practical completion in February 2007.

243 On 26 May 2006, Mr Maaser submitted a program to Mr Chan in the form of a coloured printout. The program, as predicted, did not reflect adequate progress with the works, providing for a date of practical completion well after the date approved by the superintendent. Mr Pozzebon was now reminding Dura of the power to withhold payment of moneys under cl 33.2(e). On 7 June 2006, Mr Maaser responded indicating how he would address each of Mr Pozzebon's concerns and that he would submit the revised program within the next few days.

244 Rather than provide the program in electronic format, Dura engaged Knowles (Aust) Pty Ltd, apparently to evaluate its program and provide a report regarding compliance with the contract and the construction industry practice generally. On 15 June 2006, Dura received a report from Mr Ashley Wikman of Knowles (Aust) Pty Ltd. His report, which is in general terms, apparently persuaded Dura at the time that the program satisfied the requirements of the contract. Dura did not hand over the electronic format. Mr Wikman did not give evidence.

245 On 26 June 2006, a programming consultant, Tracey Brunstrom and Hammond (TBH) submitted a report to Hue assessing Dura's program, 'Revision No. 4: 21 March 2006'. Mr Andrews of TBH gave evidence at trial. In June 2006, Mr Andrews assessed the program in the context of its utility to monitor progress of the works and assess the contractor's EOT claims. He qualified his assessment, because he did not have an electronic version of the program. Mr Andrews advised Hue that the program might not provide accurate monitoring of progress, which could lead to an inaccurate project completion date forecast and could not be used to make EOT assessments with any confidence, due to the lack of a clearly identifiable critical path. Further, the program did not show float, logic, start and finish dates and did not appear to include any progress of the works. The status of the works could not be assessed. In Mr Andrews' assessment, the superintendent could reasonably withhold approval of the program, as it did not show 'the sequence of activities which constitute the critical path'. Further, it should, but did not, show the progress of the works, permitting an accurate status of works assessment to demonstrate the impact of 'delay' activities.

246 At the 28 June 2006 site meeting Mr Pozzebon again requested that Dura provide a softcopy version of the program, repeating the request in correspondence on 3 July 2006, faxed to Mr Hendricks.

247 On 6 July 2006, TBH sent an addendum to their report of 26 June 2006 following review of a later paper version provided by Dura ('Revision 4: 21 March 2006' with 22a June 2006 in the footer, presumably a reference to a print date). Mr Andrews advised Hue that the program was not a comprehensive construction program and could not be used to assess EOT claims made by Dura. Mr Andrews advised he was unable to assess the critical path of the program due to the program's failure to show float, logic, late start and late finish dates (he accepted that a softcopy of the program might show evidence of a critical path). TBH was unable to assess the status of the works because the program did not appear to include any progress of works.

248 On 7 July 2006, Mr Maaser emailed to Mr Pozzebon a copy of the program in portable document format (PDF). At the 12 July 2006 site meeting Dura noted that it had provided an electronic version of the program. I pause to record that I am satisfied that Dura knew that by 'electronic version', Hue was seeking a copy of the program in its native format, that is, a copy that Mr Pozzebon could analyse using the functionality of his version of MS Project. I am also satisfied that Dura made a strategic decision to not provide the program in a format that permitted a detailed analysis by Mr Pozzebon of its EOT claims.

249 On 13 July 2006, Mr Pozzebon reiterated his earlier requests that Dura provide an electronic version of the program. Mr Maaser asserted he had submitted an electronic copy of the program to Mr Pozzebon; Dura did not accept rejection of the program and intended to challenge any further rejection. Mr Maaser attached a copy of the Knowles Report. On 17 July 2006, Mr Pozzebon responded by a detailed letter to Mr Hendricks explaining why both of the 'Revision 4: 21 March 2006' versions of the program were unacceptable. Mr Pozzebon based his comments on the TBH report and addendum. Mr Pozzebon stated that he did not approve either version of the program and highlighted the outstanding issues impeding his approval of the program. He reiterated that he required a softcopy of the program in its native electronic form, not in PDF format.

250 By the 26 July 2006 site meeting, Dura had still not provided the requested form of the program. By this time, according to tendered correspondence, there was a notice of dispute apparently issued under cl 47.1. On 31 July 2006, Mr Pozzebon again faxed Mr Hendricks reiterating that the superintendent deemed the program non-compliant with cl 33.2 of the contract due to the reasons earlier stated and requested that Dura immediately submit a satisfactory program.

251 Apparently, the issue came up in a progress payment adjudication and the adjudicator expressed a preference for Mr Andrews' opinions. Mr Pozzebon again requested a softcopy of the program. Ultimately, Mr Pozzebon never received a softcopy version (MS Project) of the program, nor did he approve any versions of the program that he received.

252 By about March 2006 Mr Maaser was aware that Dura would not reach the contracted date of practical completion, as extended. Mr Maaser agreed that one of the disputes between the parties concerned unresolved EOT claims in seven areas. Mr Maaser understood cl 33.2 required the contractor to submit a comprehensive construction program showing the sequence of activities that constitutes the critical path. Mr Maaser disagreed with Mr Pozzebon's contention that a program showing a satisfactory critical path had not been provided. His disagreement involved sticking to the fatuous assertion that Mr Pozzebon ought to accept a print-out snapshot from the program as complying with the contract or, if that not be adequate, the version in PDF format was sufficient provision of the program in 'electronic' form. I am satisfied from the annotations of the correspondence exhibited that Mr Hendricks and Mr Khor were directing Mr Maaser not to provide a copy of the program in the form required by the superintendent. Dura was seeking a commercial advantage, namely extensions of the time for practical completion, that Mr Hendricks and Mr Khor perceived would not be gained if those claims were properly scrutinised.

253 Mr Maaser ambitiously asserted that the superintendent had approved the program of 21 March 2006. When challenged, he could do no more than point to correspondence from the superintendent acknowledging receipt of the program. A call for any documents showing approval of the program remained unanswered. Mr Maaser played an active role in briefing Mr Browning. He instructed Mr Browning that a November 2005 program was the last approved program and could not explain the discrepancy between that instruction and his evidence of approval of a later program. Mr Maaser provided the program in native format to Mr Browning without explaining that the superintendent did not receive it in that format. Mr Maaser also, at Mr Browning's request, later made changes to the structure of, and data in, the program. There was no evidence of these changes.

254 Challenged by the cross-examiner, Mr Maaser maintained that Dura could not meet the projected completion date because of Hue's changes in the scope of works. He was unable to show on several of the paper copies of the program that the progress of the works was anything other than indicative and Mr Maaser agreed it did not show the status of the works on site. Mr Maaser stated that one had to be familiar with what was happening on site with the project. His attempts to demonstrate the critical path in the program were unsatisfactory. Eventually, Mr Maaser asserted that the program was 'not our best program but there were plenty of others submitted' and he agreed that Mr Pozzebon's dissatisfaction with the programs submitted was justified. Mr Maaser explained that it was when Mr Pozzebon made formal demands under the contract for the provision of a proper program that Dura sought an opinion from Knowles.

Was approval of the construction program unreasonably withheld?

255 The contract requires a 'comprehensive construction program', one that meets with the approval of the superintendent, not unreasonably withheld. The contractor always remains responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures employed in and about the execution of the works. The contractor has also accepted the obligation to proceed with the works with due expedition and without delay. The superintendent may direct in what order and at what time the various stages or parts of the works shall be performed. Suspension of the works is regulated by cl 34 and the times for commencement and practical completion are governed by cl 35. Other provisions govern extensions of time, delays, and directions from the superintendent to accelerate the works.

256 The language of the clause is not ambiguous. Hue's expert on construction programming, Mr Andrews referred to a general reluctance of builders to provide copies of the program in electronic form. Mr Andrews apparently often provides advice 'front end' to principals to insert clauses into contracts specifying that an electronic copy is to be provided, observations that Dura seized upon, overlooking their generality. Dura contended that the emphasis on its failure to provide a copy of the program in native format was ill founded, as the contract does not specify provision of an electronic copy. Counsel for Dura also observed that AS 2124-1992 was prepared in 1992, before the use of computers in the construction industry was common, so it could hardly have been in anticipation of the drafters of the standard form that electronic copies would be provided. I did not understand Mr Andrews to be directing his remarks to the construction of AS 2124-1992 but, if he was, I reject his remarks, along with Dura's submission.

257 The requirements of the clause are flexible, affected by the nature of the project. The three specific requirements are that the program is comprehensive, shows the sequences of activities that constitute the critical path, and is approved by the superintendent. The specific requirement of a demonstrable critical path adds little, beyond clarity of contractual intent, to the requirement that the program be, in the reasonable opinion of the superintendent, comprehensive. There is an evident contractual intention that the program is to serve not just the objectives and uses of the contractor. When evaluating extensions of time for practical completion, the superintendent under cl 35.5(d) may inquire into causes of delay that might permit extension of the date for practical completion. For that purpose, the superintendent could reasonably regard the identification of the sequence of activities that constitute the critical path as a necessary requirement of a comprehensive construction program. So too the capacity to assess the status of the works at a given time might be required. The parties have contemplated any reasonable use of a construction program in the furtherance of the management and administration of the contract and the project by the superintendent for the principal, not just by the contractor in the traditional way. I am also satisfied that the language of cl 33.2 does not constrain the superintendent to pen and paper. It is perfectly reasonable for the superintendent to refuse approval for a program, generated on industry standard software, that he cannot himself use on a computer. Nothing in the language of the contract shows that the parties intended to so confine the nature of the approved program in its use by the parties. I have arrived at this position from the language of the contract. I am not surprised to see that it accords with the substance of Mr Andrews' description of construction industry practice that I will come to in due course.

258 I am satisfied that there was not a comprehensive construction program approved by the superintendent in place from about March 2006. Dura was not relieved of any obligation under the contract by that fact, and it particular was obliged not to depart from any earlier approved program without reasonable cause. Under earlier approved programs, the date for practical completion was 18 October 2006. Dura had never obtained approval, or the superintendent had reasonably withheld approval, for practical completion in February 2007. Dura's obligation was to execute the works for practical completion in October 2006. Dura was not entitled merely to apply such resources to the project as would see it completed in February 2007.

259 There were significant early delays in the project because of the extent of rock and contaminated soil discovered during excavation. Over a number of variation claims in relation to this work, Dura sought an extension of time of 73 days. Mr Chan approved 53 days in January 2006, which is after the date of the last approved construction program. Hue revised the layout of H type units (units 22-25, 27, 28). The revisions affected the location of services. Hue accepted as a variation costs associated with the revisions but not the delay claimed, as the work did not affect the critical path. In April 2006, Mr Pozzebon reassessed the claim, which Mr Chan originally assessed in 2005. As the revisions were issued in August 2005, and Dura poured the slab for the third floor late in 2005, Mr Pozzebon, too, concluded that the instruction for the revisions was not a cause of delay. Dura accepted the allowance at the time. It is Mr Browning's opinion that the allowance is wrong. He asserts a net delay to the critical path of 10 days from the layout revisions.

260 Structural changes were made to unit 29. AI 108, in December 2005, directed structural changes to the beam on level three at unit 29 and sought a costing. On 2 February 2006, Dura responded with VQ43, which included a note that an extension of time claim of 10 days is applicable to the variation. Mr Chan assessed the claim and, in March 2006, allowed an EOT of 3 days. Mr Thomas of WT Partnership also assessed this claim and Mr Pozzebon later reviewed it. They determined that a 3 day EOT was proper. At the time Dura accepted the extension. Mr Browning asserts the allowance is wrong as AI 108 caused a net delay to the critical path of 11 days.

261 On 22 February 2006, updated electrical drawings were issued. Dura's electrical subcontractor, LEN Electrical issued a notice of delay and Dura claimed an EOT of 15 days. LEN Electrical claimed delay was due to many changes to the electrical layout equipment which need approval, suggesting that the new drawings were very different to the tender drawings and already 3 days had been spent setting out the job. Variation 58 claimed $141,000. This surprised Hue and at a site meeting to discuss the variation, it became clear that LEN Electrical was building from preliminary drawings not the construction drawings. Mr Pozzebon sought but did not receive any further details from Dura to substantiate this EOT claim or demonstrate any effect on the critical path. Dura served no notice of delay or formal EOT claim and Mr Pozzebon did not enter this claim into the EOT register or formally assess it. Dura did not dispute with Hue the failure to grant an EOT. Yet Dura instructed Mr Browning to consider this claim and when he did so, Mr Browning assessed an EOT entitlement of 29 days, calculated as the net delay on the critical path.

262 Another source of delay involved issues concerning the location of airconditioning condensate drains and tundishes. On 27 March 2006, Dura sought revised hydraulic drawings. The architect responded on 5 April 2006 without showing tundish locations. Dura then issued to the architect a request for information and, soon after, informed Mr Chan that it was unable to install airconditioning condensation lines and, accordingly, unable to proceed with plasterboard walls, measuring, fabricating and installing joinery and associated works and also flooring. In early May, a variation quote on the revised hydraulic services noted that practical completion would be delayed. The EOT claim was for 75 days.

263 Initially Dura gave notice of ongoing delays and Mr Pozzebon responded requesting further information and inquiring whether Dura intended to claim an EOT. A further notice of delay, claiming delays to mechanical services refers to tundishes as cause of the delay. Dura's claim, in relation to the mechanical issues with tundishes (the mechanical services contractor installs condensate piping to the tundish) apparently involved an EOT of 68 days. Mr Pozzebon assessed, and rejected, this EOT claim for the following reasons:

• It was submitted outside the 10 days provided by the contract.
• He considered that installation of tundishes could not realistically delay the progress across the entire site. A tundish is a fit out item. Although, ideally tundishes are installed in a correct sequence of works, retro fitting is possible and the task is most unlikely to be on a critical path.
• Had Dura submitted shop drawings, as required by the specifications, the inconsistency may have been picked up months earlier. Shop drawings were not issued until August 2006.
• The claim was based on the variations submitted following the revised drawings issued 28 April 2006, which, it was asserted, had delayed the works since 25 January 2006. Mr Pozzebon did not accept that Dura had mitigated its delay in these circumstances. Mr Browning's assessment of Dura's claim to 75 days was a net delay to the critical path of 14 days.

No formal EOT claim was submitted and Mr Pozzebon's request for further information was ignored. On 15 May 2006, the superintendent rejected this delay claim.

264 On 13 June 2006, Dura submitted EOT claim 10, said to relate to hydraulic claims, seeking an extension of 84 days. The claim referred to the tundish mechanical issues that I have just mentioned. Mr Browning appears to have regarded the claim for a total 84 days to relate to the redesign of hydraulic services. His assessment was that there was a net saving of time on the critical path of one day.

265 The next delay issue concerned the Odourvac system. In response to a direction in April 2006, that Dura comply with the mechanical drawings, it submitted on 17 May 2006 a variation that referred to ongoing delays and claimed an EOT of 67 days. Mr Pozzebon responded instructing that Dura install the mechanical system as documented with the only substitution being the fan, the Odourvac toilet cistern extraction system having been deleted. On 1 June 2006 Dura submitted a revised variation that included an EOT claim of 67 days. Mr Pozzebon then sought further information, directing that Dura proceed with the variation without delay. On 23 June 2006 Dura submitted an EOT claim for 87 days. Mr Pozzebon rejected the EOT claim. Later, on behalf of Dura, Mr Browning would assess the net delay to the critical path to be four days.

266 The other significant delay issue related to the weather proofing of unit 29. Hue revised the design of unit 29, increasing its size by merging it with unit 28. On 16 March 2006, Hue instructed Dura not to proceed with the fit-out of unit 29. As it was on the upper level, not completing the waterproofing of unit 29 affected the waterproofing of the building below. Deleted from Dura's works were three particular activities:

• tanking under external tiles,
• fabrication and fitting the windows and glaze,
• fitting external tiles.

In rainy weather, water flowed down the exposed stairwell connecting the third and fourth floor in unit 29 creating an opportunity, or risk, for water to enter units on the second floor (units 10, 11, 14 and 15) and units on the ground floor (units 1, 2 and 3). Hue did not perform any temporary waterproofing works of unit 29 at any time. Temporary works would have enabled it to have continued its program without risk of water damage below from unit 29. On 3 July 2006, Dura claimed variation costs for cleaning up after rain. Mr Pozzebon received an EOT claim of half a day at the same time. On 24 July 2006, Dura wrote a letter warning of the need for temporary waterproofing in unit 29 to avoid delays. On 3 August 2006, a notice of delay informed Hue of ongoing delays associated with the waterproofing of unit 29 and the following day Dura submitted an EOT claim for half a day.

267 Mr Pozzebon rejected the claims, principally because Dura failed to mitigate the prospect of delay, having been aware of the changes made to unit 29 since March 2006. The proper course in Mr Pozzebon's view, which I accept, would have been to have claimed a relatively minor variation for the costs of temporary waterproofing, rather than the claim that it made. Mr Pozzebon' suggestion found support in the contract and Dura's apparent ignorance of these provisions is another example of its unsatisfactory performance of the contract. Under cl 40, the superintendent may direct the contractor to omit any part of the works, and the contractor responds notifying the superintendent of the effect of the variation on issues of time and cost, which may be valued in the absence of agreement. Nothing suggests that Dura turned its mind to waterproofing issues when the superintendent issued the instruction to delete the fit-out of unit 29. The specifications oblige the contractor to anticipate possible sources of damage to the works and to take active and positive protective measures to maintain the works in pristine condition until practical completion. The specifications expressly identify that simply making good in the event of damage is inadequate discharge of this responsibility. The contractor must provide necessary protection for all goods and materials incorporated into the works, at all stages through to practical completion, against damage arising from but not limited to weather conditions, construction, other contractors, warping, distortion, abrasion and other conditions which could have an adverse effect on any goods and/or materials used in the works.

268 The terms of the contract explain Hue's exasperation at receiving the EOT claim for the deletion of the unit 29 fit-out. In the negotiations about the credit that Dura ought to receive, it made no mention of the costs of temporary protection works. Whatever be Dura's reasons for this apparent inattention to the terms of the contract, by the trial Mr Browning's advice to Dura, which also overlooked these relevant contractual specifications, exacerbated the effect. I have rejected that evidence. Until that rejection, Dura believed, or chose to believe, that it had 'expert' advice that Hue was obliged to carry out temporary waterproofing works and that there was delay to critical path activities affecting units 10, 11, 18, and 19. This conclusion is misconceived and its pursuit at trial was an example of the waste of time and resources that can follow an expert's lack of rigour in observing the Expert Code.

269 There was a subsidiary issue whether a further source of water was the balconies to a number of units including unit 29 and whether Dura had complied with an instruction regarding flashing details. As with other EOT claims, Dura appeared to accept Mr Pozzebon's rejection of the unit 29 waterproofing claim, there being no evidence of protest or invocation of contractual dispute resolution procedures.

270 These EOT processes ran broadly in line with the ongoing issues about an approved construction program. Dura well understood, from at least early May 2006 and probably before that, that it could not meet the extended date for practical completion, which was 18 October 2006. By this time, progress claims were being disputed and going to adjudication. Tension between pressing rejected claims for EOT and refusing to submit an up to date, revised construction program in a form reasonably acceptable to the superintendent would have been evident. It is hardly surprising that Mr Pozzebon did not consider Dura's EOT claims to be credible.

271 Clause 30.1 makes clear that under AS 2124-1992 the obligation lies on the contractor to ensure the quality of materials and work performed in construction. The contractor is required to execute and complete the works in accordance with the provisions of the contract, in a proper and workmanlike manner to the standard and quality specified in the drawings and specifications, adopting best practices of the trade. The contractor does not discharge that obligation by merely attending to any defect in materials and work when pointed out by the principal or its representatives.

30.1 Quality of Materials and Work

The Contractor shall execute and complete the Works as follows:

(a) in accordance with provisions of this Contract;

(b) in a proper and workman like manner, ensuring that the standard and quality of workmanship and materials to be incorporated in the Works are at least of the standard and quality specified in the drawings and specifications; ...

(e) in the absence of any standard being specified, the Works shall comply with the relevant standards of the Standards Association of Australia;

(f) adopting best practices of the respective trades relevant to carrying out the Works; ...

The contract, in a number of ways two of which are presently relevant, protects the principal from inadequate performance of this obligation by the contractor.

272 The contract, by cl 30.2, requires the contractor to plan, establish, and maintain a quality assurance system that can be accessed, monitored, and audited by the superintendent. A quality assurance system is an aid for achieving, and documenting, compliance with the contract. It does not relieve the contractor of the responsibility to comply with the contract. Section 6 of the architectural specification details the requirements for quality control for this project and a quality program, defined in a quality control manual or like document, must fully describe the organisation systems, inspection and test plan procedures that ensure that all essential inspection requirements are determined and satisfied throughout all phases of the works.

30.2 Quality Assurance

The Contractor shall, if requirements are so stated in the Contract and if not stated then in accordance with the Australian standard 3901:

(a) plan, establish and maintain a quality system which conforms to those requirements;

(b) provide the Superintendent with access to the quality system of the Contractor and each of the subcontractors of the Contractor to enable monitoring and quality auditing.

Any such quality system shall be used only as an aid to achieving compliance with the Contract and to document such compliance. Such system shall not relieve the Contractor of the responsibility to comply with the Contract.

273 Peter Brunner, Dura's site manager/supervisor told the court that he was responsible for the quality of the work on site. He gave evidence of inspection of the works by Hue representatives and of Dura's reactions to identified defects, but made no mention, in his witness statements, of any systematic inspection by, or for, Dura of the works for quality assurance. Cross-examined about Dura's quality assurance system, and admitting he knew Dura had obligations as regards quality control, Mr Brunner explained that Mr Maaser, Dura's project manager, established a system for the project. The process used was a 'normal Dura quality control' system that he was unable to explain. There was a book. Mr Brunner could not remember how often he referred to the quality control book despite being responsible for supervising quality control and for filling in the quality control book. He could not recall that he had ever filled in the book.

274 Mr Brunner could not say how the quality control system allowed defects that appeared to have been signed off as rectified in one place to be identified later in other apartments. He asserted to the cross-examiner that he had a system in place for checking all the apartments if a defect that was found in one apartment. When asked what the system was, he was not sure. He thought there was a pre-plasterboard check off sheet but would have to look for it. Mr Brunner also said Dura had a system in place to deal with systemic defects. Dura had not discovered a quality control manual, and the documents Mr Brunner produced from 'files' were of no relevance. Mr Brunner produced a document described as a pre wall cladding checklist. On examination, inconsistencies were evident and it confirmed that a checklist process had not been appropriately implemented, or carried through, over the course of the project.

275 Mr Brunner's evidence satisfies me that Dura's response to defects was completely reactive to Hue's inspection and notification. If a defect was pointed out to Mr Brunner, he might direct a sub-trade to correct it and, once the sign-off system commenced, have Mr Alexander sign it off. Mr Brunner could not confirm whether he would check for that defect in other units and gave no evidence of any particular response in relation to the work of subcontractors responsible for any particular communication with subcontractors were competent and experienced appeared to be the basis for its expectation of compliance with the contractual standards. I am satisfied that Dura only attempted rectification of identified defects, despite defects lists being endorsed that they were by way of example only.

Note: this defects list constitutes items that were noted on site on the dates as shown. This list is by no means exhaustive and does not free the contractor from any obligations to complete the works as per the documentation and specifications.

Dura had no system for quality control. Dura had paid no regard at all to its obligations under the contract to have a system of quality control.

276 Dura's failure to have a system for quality control was significant in at least three ways. I accept that each of Mr Pozzebon and Mr Chu perceived that Dura had no quality control. That was a matter of significant concern to each of them during the latter stages of Dura's works but also particularly for Mr Chu, when he came on 20 September 2006 to assess the cause shown by Dura to the notices. It is also a matter I take into account, when assessing Dura's contentions about the extent of defects appearing in photographs. As is explained elsewhere, a debate about whether a defect identified by a photograph was incomplete, rather than defective, work was apparent throughout the proceeding. Dura contends that most matters would have been satisfactorily completed but for the repudiation of the contract by Hue. Dura's failure to establish that there was a quality control system is against this proposition, which if relevant at all appears to be an expression of hope rather than expectation. An inference, more readily drawn in the absence of any quality control, was that the extent of the criticism of a subcontractor's work, or of sign off by the superintendent's representative could not be limited to the particular defect photographed.

277 By early March 2006, Mr Chu had concerns about a lack of progress on the site, the construction technique adopted by Dura, and its use of scaffolding. Because of these concerns, Hue engaged Mr Pozzebon to provide project management services. Preceding his appointment, Mr Chu negotiated the terms and conditions for Mr Pozzebon's engagement. On 28 March 2006, Hue appointed Mr Pozzebon to be the superintendent's representative.

278 Mr Pozzebon noted there were extensive defects in the works and Dura received a very large number of instructions and directions relating to defects in the period between April and September 2006. The principal communications about defects were:

(a) defects list 1 (DF1) issued 7 April 2006;

(b) defects list 2 (DF2) issued 19 April 2006;

(c) updated DF1 issued 8 June 2006;

(d) defects list 3 (DF3) issued 28 June 2006;

(e) defects list 4 (DF4) issued 17 August 2006;

(f) updated defects list 3 (DF3A) issued 13 September 2006; and

(g) defects list 5 (DF5) issued 28 September 2006.

Bearing in mind that the notice to show cause were first served on 4 September 2006 and re-served on 11 September 2006 and that Hue decided on 20 September 2006 that cause had not been shown by Dura, DF3A and DF5 are relevant to matters other than the issue of, and response to, the notice to show cause.

The provisions of the contract that concern materials and work

279 Clause 30 governs materials and work. The ultimate responsibility for the quality of materials and work is borne by the contractor. I have already noted its terms.

280 Clause 30.3 of AS 2124-1992 is the source of the superintendent's power to direct the contractor to reconstruct, replace, or correct the material or work of the contractor that has been discovered to be not in accordance with the contract.

30.3 Defective Materials or Work

If the Superintendent discovers material or work provided by the Contractor which is not in accordance with the Contract, the Superintendent may direct the Contractor to-

(a) remove the material from the Site;

(b) demolish the work;

(c) reconstruct, replace or correct the material or work; or

(d) not to deliver the material or work to the Site.

The Superintendent may direct the times within which the Contractor must commence and complete the removal, demolition, replacement or correction.

281 Clause 30.6 reinforces that responsibility for the quality of work lies with the contractor when it provides that notwithstanding that the superintendent has not given a direction under cl 30.3, the contractor shall promptly remove, demolish, replace or correct material or work that is not in accordance with the contract. The contractor shall not be entitled to rely upon any inspection or tests carried out by the principal or superintendent for their own purposes and those inspections or tests will not affect the contractor's responsibility for the works.

282 I will note that the drawings were subject to many revisions and none of the construction drawings at contract is earlier than rev P. Further, there were further revisions between the contract date and 23 October 2006. The architect, Mr Chan, proved a complete set of the applicable revised construction drawings that identify the works Dura was contractually obliged to build as at 23 October 2006, after allowing for revisions and approved variations. Reference to earlier, superseded drawings and sets of drawings, made in some instances, is inappropriate.

283 Dura now contends that defects list 1, issued 7 April 2006, is not a direction from the superintendent to reconstruct, replace, or correct the material or work of Dura. I agree that the list does not contain the explicit language of direction that Mr Pozzebon used a few days later. What is does state, consistently with cl 30 generally, is that it is a list of defective items noted on site on the dates shown that is not exhaustive and does not free the contractor from its obligations to complete the works in accordance with the documentation and specifications. On an objective reading of the defects list by a contractor who is proceeding under AS 2024, there is no doubt what is required.

284 Defects list 1 primarily related to defects identified by the architect, who revised the list, as I will explain. On 11 April 2006, Mr Pozzebon wrote to Mr Hendricks enclosing a copy of the defects list 1 stating 'pursuant to cl 30.3 the contractor is directed to detail against each item the proposed rectification method and timetable to complete these works within 14 calendar days'. On this occasion, the superintendent had not directed the complete rectification of the list of defects within 14 days. What was required was that within 14 calendar days Dura communicate to the superintendent its method and program for that task. AS 2124-1992 defines 'Direction' in very wide terms. I am satisfied that on 11 April 2006, Dura received a valid direction from the superintendent.

285 Mr Hendricks asked Mr Maaser to discuss the list with Mr Brunner. Nothing in the conduct of any of Messrs Hendricks, Maaser or Brunner, suggests that at the time of receipt, Dura did not understand the letter from Mr Pozzebon and DF1 as a direction from the superintendent to reconstruct, replace, or correct the material or work of Dura. Further, the superintendent's reference to cl 30.3 naturally draws the reader's attention to the provisions of the contract that Mr Hendricks was familiar with, and which bound Dura, especially cl 30 generally.

286 Dura did not comply with this direction within the time nominated. By 26 April 2006, Dura had not communicated to Mr Pozzebon or Mr Chan its method and program to complete rectification of the list of defects. There may have been confusion or misunderstanding by Dura about the response expected of it, but no good reason for that arose from the content of the defects list or the superintendent's notice. By the site meeting on 31 May 2006, Dura had not responded to the superintendent about the defects list although it may have attended to a number of the items. At that site meeting, Dura invited the architect to inspect the matters identified in defects list 1. When he did so, Mr Chan was satisfied about rectification of some, but not all, of the defects and issued a revised defects list 1 on 8 June 2006.

287 On 13 June 2006, Mr Pozzebon directed that Dura correct the defects noted in the revised list, and, within 7 days, provide details of the time and manner of rectification proposed for each item. At this time, Mr Pozzebon noted that Dura had not responded to his direction on 11 April 2006 and had not raised those matters at site meetings. Mr Pozzebon suggested that Dura was hindering timely completion and the quality of the project and that Hue might consider enforcing its contractual entitlements. The revised defects list 1 had expanded from 37 identified defect items to 72 items. I note also that the revised list issued by Mr Chan explicitly directs rectification as soon as possible. At that time, Mr Chan was still superintendent. At trial, Dura contended that Mr Pozzebon's letter was not a valid superintendent's direction, but that submission did not acknowledge the explicit direction in the body of the revised defects list by Mr Chan. Dura took no point that the direction of Mr Chan, that the defects be rectified as soon as possible, was inconsistent with the direction of Mr Pozzebon that Dura communicate to Mr Chan its method and program to complete rectification of the list of defects. Dura could not sensibly suggest that confusion resulted from the differences in these directions. On an objective reading of Mr Pozzebon's letter and Mr Chan's revised defects list, in context, a contractor operating under AS 2024 could have no doubt what was required of it, but Dura did not immediately respond.

288 The minutes of the site meeting on 28 June 2006 record that Dura had not responded to the revised defects list. Mr Pozzebon referred to the possibility of Hue exercising its contractual rights. Dura then promised a response. Dura provided an item-by-item notated list on 30 June 2006. It contained the general assertion that a vast majority of these 'defect' items are minor items, rectified along with any subsequent damage immediately prior to the finishing trades commencing. Dura also asserted that the details shown on structural drawings have not proven consistent with architectural details. Of the 72 items on the list, 9 are noted by Dura as having been rectified, 36 items are noted as to be repaired or rectified by a subcontractor either 'soon' or at some identified point in time prior to completion. Twenty-one items are disputed in one way or another, 'constructed as documented', 'no action required', or as an issue between structural and architectural documentation.

289 By 20 September 2006, Dura had not advised either Mr Pozzebon or Mr Chan that it had completed all of the defects on that list. Neither had it communicated to the superintendent its method and program for defect rectification. In effect, Dura left Hue to accept that Dura's 30 June statement of its proposed response was adequate. When showing cause to the directions notice, Dura produced to Hue Mr Hendricks' note on Dura's copy of the letter and a copy of the list without any further explanation.

290 To illustrate why I consider Dura's response to defects list 1 in its original and revised form to be inadequate, some examples can be analysed. The first item on the defects list was that the set out of second and third floor windows at the end of the corridor was incorrect. This was a significant matter as it affected the appearance of the façade of the building from Lord Street. The window on level two was set off centre between the two walls. Dura did not respond to Mr Pozzebon's letter of 11 April and thus correction of the setting out error required that Hue modify the window size. AI 209 instructed Dura to modify the window size and Dura then resized and relocated the window, but damaged the render on the eastern external façade. I do not consider this a satisfactory response although Dura rectified the second itemised set out issue on defects list 1.

291 The third and fourth items on the list identified poor quality concrete work. Dura's later response to these items became repetitive: the direction did not identify the specific defective area. There was no evidence that anyone from Dura looked for it. Neither was there evidence of Dura's request for clarification and Mr Pozzebon observed that nobody from Dura ever stated, at a site meeting or otherwise, that they did not understand or could not identify the location of the defects listed in reports. Those present at site meetings discussed defects lists and there was opportunity for clarification. In any event, this form of response is not consistent with Dura's obligations under cl 30 to discharge the primary obligation of ensuring the quality of the materials and work in accordance with the contract documents. Further, this type of response conveniently overlooks that Hue was only drawing examples of non-compliant work to Dura's attention.

292 What Dura was required by its contract to do was to have positively satisfied itself that that type of defect was not present anywhere in the works. I do not doubt that the superintendent or the architect would have provided assistance if sought. Mr Maaser contended about these items, firstly, that subsequent defects notices did not repeat the items, although there was evidence that the items were raised at subsequent site meetings. Mr Maaser's second contention was that the concrete was not a finished surface and the application of the floor finish would deal with the issue. However, Dura did not make this response to the superintendent's direction. I am satisfied that, by 20 September 2006, Dura attended to the defect where it appeared in the floor in Unit 3 but had neither rectified other instances of this defect, nor provided within 14 days, or at all, its method and program for dealing with the presence or occurrence of that defect.

293 Another item on the list was that the set downs in wet areas did not align with the walls of the wet areas as required by the drawings. Mr Maaser again complained that specific units affected were not identified. He did not give evidence of checking set downs in wet areas for himself.

294 When on 19 April 2006, Mr Pozzebon issued to Dura defects list 2, he sought a response within 7 days. Defects list 2 recorded structural defects identified by the engineer. During an inspection on 5 April 2006, Mr Garagounis, of Maurice Farrugia & Associates, observed a number of instances of defects and poor workmanship when inspecting the major structural works, focussing around the suspended concrete slabs and the supporting steel work/block work. The defects reported were:

(a) intermittent gaps between the bondek sheeting and the form block walls at each end of the concrete slabs in some areas in units 1, 2, 4-7, 15, 16, and 26. Rectification grouting was recommended;

(b) steel reinforcing protruding through the concrete slab was also noticed in units 1 and 9;

(c) a steel beam was protruding through the form block wall of the foyer and into unit 4, which affected fire rating;

(d) there was a gap between the base of the steel beam which supports the concrete slab and the form blocks in units 5, 9, 10 and 16;

(e) in units 8 and 9 the steel floor beam supported the bondek sheeting through a timber packing plate. This is not a recommended installation procedure;

(f) there were penetrations through the slabs in units 1, 5, 6, 9, 15, 16 and 29 that were not filled with epoxy grout filler to ensure all sound and fire requirements are satisfied;

(g) at the transition point between the bondek concrete and the off-form concrete in units 2, 4, 6, 11, 16 and 18 there was spalling concrete. This required rectification by injecting a suitable non-shrink grout or epoxy mixture to the affected areas;

(h) the set down area of the concrete slab in unit 2 had not been set out in accordance with the drawings;

(i) the bottom reinforcement to the slab in unit 18 was visible from beneath;

(j) the steel plate which should support the bondek sheeting had not been provided in units 18-21 and 29 resulting in a gap between the bottom flange of the steel beam and the bondek;

(k) in unit 29 there was a section of bondek sheeting running parallel to the steel beam that was bowing considerably;

(l) the concrete slab had been unevenly scabbled/trowel finished in some areas in units 1, 10, 13, 14 and 17 requiring a suitable epoxy grout resin to achieve a level finish;

(m) the concrete slab terminating at the form block had not been finished with a flat and level soffit in line with the form block above and below, requiring a suitable non-shrink grout or similar epoxy mortar to be applied.

Mr Garagounis recommended that all necessary rectification works be completed prior to the commencement of plastering works and general fit-out works and, on 12 April 2006, sent to the architect a fax summarising his findings and recommendations arising from this inspection.

295 Mr Pozzebon asked that Dura detail against each item on the list the proposed rectification method and the timetable to complete the work, noting that sign-off by the structural engineer was required. There was no response within the specified time, but later, on 1 May 2005, Mr Hendricks directed Mr Maaser to liaise with Mr Brunner to complete the urgent items.

296 The engineer attended site on numerous occasions to assess Dura's progress on the necessary rectification works. On 4 May 2006, Mr Garagounis attended the site. His inspection was limited to the ground and first floor of the project and he did not therefore assess a number of items. He observed that many of the defects noted earlier had not been rectified. Mr Garagounis made further recommendations about rectification methods and sent to the architect a report recording his findings from the inspection. Then, Mr Pozzebon notified Dura it had not addressed 15 outstanding items. On 18 May and on 30 May 2006, Mr Garagounis, on further inspection at Dura's invitation, focussed on levels 2 and 3 of the project, observing remediation of some, but not all, of the defects listed. Mr Garagounis reported further defects to the architect on 31 May 2006:

(a) the canopy over the main entrance to the project had not been built in accordance with the drawings;

(b) the same defect identified in the 24 March report concerning the block work pier on grid line 1 on the fourth floor slab had been constructed using 140mm wide block work;

(c) Mr Garagounis was unable to inspect the defect involving bowing bondek and sought confirmation from Dura as to what rectification action had been undertaken; and

(d) Mr Garagounis was unable to assess a number of items from the 12 April report because the apartments had been plastered and the items were not accessible.

297 This second phase of the structural defects inspection had identified that 8 items were still to be rectified, 5 items had been covered over and could not be inspected and 14 items relating to penetrations.

298 It was not until the site meeting on 26 July 2006 that Dura responded stating that these defects were now completed. As a number of places where defects were identified were covered over with plasterboard, an architect's instruction required Dura to provide a statutory declaration confirming that items that the structural engineer was unable to inspect had been rectified. Dura provided no statutory declaration. Mr Garagounis reported his findings from further site inspections on 1 August 2006 and again on 8 September 2006.

299 In its response to the notice to show cause in relation to defects list 2, Dura simply included a copy of with annotations beside each item such as 'Formpro', 'find where', 'Formpro to complete' or like notations. The ongoing process involving defects list 2 highlighted Hue's concerns with the quality of Dura's structural work and its problems in drawing a satisfactory response from Dura. Although months after Hue issued defects list 2 Dura had rectified some defects from that list, others remained un-rectified. Dura had covered over some defect locations, which the structural engineer could not assess.

300 On 3 May 2006, Mr Chan issued AI 210. On its face, this communication is plainly a direction from Mr Chan, who was then superintendent, that Dura meet conditions specified by the building surveyor. The building surveyor's inspection focussed on fire rating issues.

301 One of Mr Chu's major concerns became compliance with fire rating requirements, as over time, Mr Chu observed, generally -

• many instances where there were holes in fire rated walls;
• large or sloppy penetrations in the fire rated plasterboard;
• penetrations in the concrete slabs that had not been back filled; and
• many instances where gaps in the plasterboard had been patched up with plasterboard off-cuts and/or metal stud off-cuts.

302 Instances of missing fire collars on penetrations, absent or inadequate caulking of penetrations, gaps between sheets, incorrect overlapping installation, absent or inadequate caulking of tops and bases of sheets, lack of fire/acoustic boxes installed to relevant apartment bounding walls - featured consistently in defects lists. It was raised in defects list 1, defects list 2, AI 210, AI 309, a direction from the superintendent that Dura comply with AI 309 (21 July 2006), defects list 4 (17 August 2006) and a direction from the superintendent that Dura complete rectification in accordance with defects list 4 and a report from MacCormack (25 August 2006).

303 Mr Brunner was present at the building surveyor's inspection. I am satisfied Mr Brunner understood the concerns being raised about requirements to obtain fire ratings. One item in AI 201 required strict compliance with the manufacturer's instructions for installation and attached to AI 210 was a copy of the CSR specifications. Mr Brunner said that AI 210 would have been passed straight on to the plasterer, via Mr Balsden who was in charge of plastering works. Mr Brunner stated that if the plasterer had said he was not complying with the manufacturer's instructions he would have done something about it. I do not accept as probable the assumptions underlying this answer. I am satisfied the plasterer was not complying with the manufacturer's instructions and that Mr Brunner did not take any steps to ensure compliance.

304 It was evident that the plasterer punched holes into the plasterboard for penetrations to fit pipes and cables, resulting in roughly torn paper backing on the plasterboard that compromises fire rating and does not comply with manufacturer's instructions. Proper practice requires neatly cored holes, with penetrations filled with fire rated mastic. This was an observation that, among others, prompted Hue to arrange for Boral to attend site to check Dura's installation procedures.

305 On 18 July 2006, AI 309 was issued by Mr Chan following an inspection of the site plasterboard works by Boral representatives, who told Hue that Boral's installation instructions had not been followed and, absent rectification, Boral would not provide any warranty. Mr Chan instructed Dura to rectify the defective installation of plasterboard, providing detail from Boral's Inspection Report of 17 July 2006. Although Mr Chan had ceased to be the superintendent by this time, on 21 July 2006 Mr Pozzebon followed up on Mr Chan's instruction with a direction that within 14 days Dura commence and complete plasterboard and fire stop rectification. By this time, Mr Chu was receiving advice from Freehills as to how Hue might exercise contractual rights to protect its position. Dura did not comply with this direction and plasterboard issues continued to be a major source of concern.

306 It is convenient to explain the issues that arose about plasterboard. Broadly, there were two major areas of concern, fire rating, and finishing tolerances. An architect, with particular experience in relation to plasterboard and fire ratings, Rico Johann Bonaldi, gave evidence about whether the Dura's works complied with the contractual drawings and specifications, industry codes and industry standards. I accept Mr Bonaldi's evidence, dealing elsewhere with the objections taken to it.

307 Mr Bonaldi identified five categories for Dura's plasterboard works.

• Fire rated walls of steel framed construction, non-load bearing and producing an acceptable and tested rating of FRL (Fire Resistance Level) -/60/60 (representing a 1 hour fire rating) in conformity with the BCA current at the time of receiving the building permit in or about October 2004;
• The same type of wall, but with finishes of moisture resistance quality plaster boards for wet areas e.g. bathrooms;
• General interior walls of steel framed construction, non-fire rated and non-load bearing with plasterboard linings on both faces and including moisture resistant plasterboard where applicable;
• Wall linings onto load bearing reinforced block walls to achieve a room finish and have acoustic ratings as required by the BCA and as specified by the Architects for the project; and
• Plasterboard ceilings suspended on steel framing from overhead steel deck, structural floor slabs.

308 The fire rating requirements of the BCA critically separate the units, described as sole occupancy units, from each other and from the common public space, to allow safe egress in case of a fire. The plasterboard and its application and fixing to steel studs were crucial in achieving the necessary rating: Dura understood this requirement. Clause 2(g) of the contract required the works to be compliant with the BCA and with all required final construction certificates issued, including fire rating certificates. Mr Bonaldi's opinion was that Dura's work could not achieve such certification because its construction of fire rated plasterboard walls did not accord with the plasterboard manufacturer's assembly and finish requirements.

309 Starting from the correct premise, that it was Dura's responsibility to conform to the contract and all the requirements of the specifications prepared by the architects as well as the BCA and its industry codes, Mr Bonaldi explained that the BCA imposes performance standards for fire protection and acoustic noise transmission. The BCA, being performance based, does not specify construction method. Performance standards require Dura to construct elements in the building to achieve that performance. Plasterboard makers fire test and certify their products as assembled, and specify the construction methods and other specific requirements - for wall penetrations, for plumbing, electrical, and mechanical services - that achieve the certified test results. Both the BCA and the AS/NZS 2589.1:1997 (Gypsum plasterboard) require that the full construction of any wall framing and the lining on both sides by special boards is to be in strict compliance with the results from actual fire tests done by the manufacturers. Therefore, it is essential to construct walls to be certified as fire rated in the manner specified by plasterboard makers.

310 Mr Atchison explained in evidence the particular provisions of the BCA and the specifications that governed the issue of fire and acoustic performance. The BCA expresses fire ratings in a formula that covers structural adequacy, integrity, and insulation over time. For example a load bearing wall may require an FRL of 120/60/30 - meaning that in the Standard Fire Test the wall must retain its structural adequacy for at least 120 minutes; integrity for at least 60 minutes; and insulation properties for at least 30 minutes. A non-load bearing wall, however, may require an FRL of -/120/120 - meaning that in a Standard Fire Test the wall is not required to retain any structural adequacy criterion. However, the wall must maintain its integrity for at least 120 minutes; and insulation properties for at least 120 minutes.

311 Manufacturers specify construction methods for framing, the application of sheeting, and the jointing of the boards. In the context of this project, the construction details that warranted particular attention were -

• the joints between the wall and fire rated floors and the joint on top of the wall with the slab above, to accommodate the expansion of the materials during a fire;
• all penetrations through such walls, e.g. taps, also need to conform strictly to the installation specification. No combustible materials may be within the rated wall, unless this detail has been part of the fire testing; and,
• the intersection of the non-load bearing walls between public corridors and apartments and the load bearing masonry construction walls between apartments.

Fire proofing between apartments, as well as between public space and apartments, required steel framed and insulated plasterboard partitions, faced with fire rated plasterboard. In Mr Bonaldi's opinion, the architect had correctly designed and specified the construction detail for the project. It was a construction issue for the builder to follow the manufacturer's recommendation. Should Dura have had any doubts about construction issues, it ought to have sought advice from the suppliers or manufacturers of the materials.

312 During the progress of the works, as I have noted, Hue identified issues about plaster and fire rating. Following AI 210 and regular inspections by the architects, Mr Chan directed AI 309a to Dura on 18 July 2006 identifying non-conformity with the requirements of Boral for fire rated partitions. Extracts from Boral's construction manual issued to Dura indicated the correct method for fire rated construction. Dura then had the construction requirements of the two manufacturers provided to it, especially emphasised by AIs. Dura was on notice of Hue's concerns about fire protection. Dura asserted the apparent skill and competence of its plastering subcontractor, but there was no evidence of that or that its own supervision and quality control systems were effective on this issue.

313 Mr Bonaldi's evidence focussed on several particular matters of faulty installation that he identified.

314 First, the connection of the masonry block load bearing walls with the plasterboard corridor partitions did not conform with the architect's detailing, which showed such masonry walls extending into the steel framing. Dura failed to set out the masonry walls correctly. As the masonry walls fell short of the corridor walls, fire protection across the end of the masonry wall between apartments was limited to unsupported sheets of plasterboard, which would fail. The result was a complete loss not only of fire protection, but also of acoustic requirements under the BCA, at the intersection of the walls. Hue discovered this condition on removal of wall linings in early 2007. Only where the masonry wall is not a separating wall can the masonry wall butt against the wall facing sheets of the 1 hour rated steel framing. Such a detail, between the blocks and the plasterboard wall, requires neither fire rating nor acoustic treatment since both sides of the block wall are within the same unit. By this construction method, Dura failed to comply with the BCA and the contract.

315 Second, the vertical butt joints were not correctly constructed. Dura had installed both Boral and CSR plasterboard but no relevant distinction arose. Both manufacturers required that any vertical butting in horizontally laid plaster sheets be jointed on a vertical steel stud. Because the method of installation discovered on inspection was not in accordance with the manufacturer's installation specification, the walls would not meet the performance characteristics required. Dura used a method called 'Back-blocking' as defined in the Code AS 2589 for butt joints in non-fire rated ceilings. Off-cut steel pieces are screwed onto the back of one side of the wall face. This technique of butting up cut sheets in between studs, on walls, is not acceptable in the case of fire rated walls. This method was evident to Mr Bonaldi on stripping down Unit 5 and in the corridor walls already stripped back by the time of his inspection.

316 Taps may be fixed on timber noggings only when the timber is shielded with added 16mm fire rated plasterboards to the back of the facing sheet on the wall. This detail for penetration of taps through the fire rated boards could not be found installed by Dura, a further respect in which the walls do not conform to Boral or CSR installation method for services penetrations.

317 Control joints in long walls are industry practise, recognised in the contract specifications. The edges of such joints should be beaded. Specifications cl 3.6(H) requires control joints at not more than 12m centres and as recommended by the plasterboard manufacturers in long runs of partitions and linings. Both Boral and CSR require the spacing of control joints not to exceed 12m. Mr Bonaldi found no control joints built into the walls in the 39m long corridor on level 3 and the 48m long corridor on Level 2. Dura failed to provide the specified control joints.

318 A further issue was that of the proper method of protecting penetrations through linings for mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic services. One issue in the proceeding concerned the proper fitting of fire collars. Another issue was whether the defective penetration detail that was identified was in a lining that required a fire rating. Mr Atchison explained how the BCA, and the drawings and specifications, required penetrations in fire rated linings to be fire stopped and I need not set out these provisions.

319 Mr Bonaldi's opinion was that the removal of non-conforming plasterboard on fire rated partitions was justified. He saw at the time of his inspections, boards fixed by Dura and still in place that did not conform to the CSR or Boral specification, and penetrations of services done by Dura that were in conformity with CSR & Boral specifications. Mr Bonaldi noted references to the same issues in reports of other consultants dealing with mechanical and electrical matters. He also reviewed photographic and video evidence proved by Mr Wong that demonstrated the presence of the non-conforming plasterwork he identified.

320 After some plasterboard walls were stopped and undercoated, Mr Chu observed that the plasterboard walls were not flat. Mr Chu was receiving regular reports from Dominic Borgia of DLB Project Management. Mr Borgia's reports identified non-compliant plasterwork. Mr Borgia communicated directly with Boral about his observations of the plasterwork. Representatives from Boral had inspected the plasterboard installed by mid-July 2006 resulting in AI 309, to which I have already referred on fire rating issues. Defects list 4 in mid-August 2006 noted the following types of defects at particular locations throughout the project:

• insufficient cover of plasterboard on internal wall;
• skirting not flush with wall;
• poor plaster junction;
• plaster junction incomplete or unresolved;
• plasterboard incorrectly set out;
• plasterboard which does not align with the window mullion;
• insufficient coverage of water resistant plasterboard on internal wall; and,
• wall short of joinery unit.

321 The contract specifications required compliance with AS/NZS 2589.1:1997 in respect of non-fire rated walls and suspended ceilings lined with plasterboard. Generally, for walls, the contract specified steel studs with steel bottom and top tracks of channel shape, steel noggings, and the plasterboard linings as required for the particular situation. Specified to attach the furring grid holding the plasterboard for ceilings and on the bulkheads, were suspension wire and rods fixed to the underside of the mainly steel deck slabs, with adjustable hanger brackets. The architect specified strict tolerances to achieve ceiling finishes that were level and square presenting the high standard of finish that Hue required. On the reinforced masonry walls, plasterboard linings were to be fixed to furring channels, on vibration mounts. The suspension of the wall sheeting is both by vertical furring channels at max. 600mm centres plus horizontal channels at floor level and just below the ceiling to give support to the sheets and as detailed in the Code AS 2578.

322 The architect's specification, cl 2.3 in section 4.750, clearly defined the suspension system for plasterboard ceilings as 'Rondo' with adjustable wire suspension. This is a suspension system fixed to the underside of steel deck finished concrete floors. At the time of Mr Bonaldi's inspections, Hue had removed most ceilings. However, photographs shown to him as part of both Audits No. 1 & 2 and a video production demonstrated the issue. Hangers made from pieces of metal straps can be observed where adjustable wire hangers were specified. In many cases, solid timber packers fix the furring channels to the soffits of the upper slab. This resulted in very uneven flatness of some ceilings at tolerances well above the plus/minus 2mm in 1000mm specified in section 04-750 3.5(B) of the contract specification. Dura's workmanship is contrary to the specification and does not give the specified tolerances. The finish shown on photographic evidence is unacceptable.

323 The specification on this project set the tolerances. Mr Bonaldi considered that the Architect specified precise tolerances to achieve a high standard for this development. Mr Bonaldi reviewed the photographical records taken by others at the time, which showed, in his opinion that Dura built to inferior tolerances. Measurements that Mr Bonaldi took in the ground floor lift lobby and the open staircase next to the lift showed very poor tolerances. Mr Bonaldi found evidence in photos and video showing that Dura did not install vibration types of mountings when attaching the wall furring channels to the separating block walls as specified. Photos show solid fixings. The video showed the very loose fixings of some of the furring members to the masonry walls.

324 Following a site inspection on 19 June 2006, MacCormacks reported to Mr Chan on defects in the mechanical services. Mr Chan issues AI 269 the following day, identifying nine issues that are types or examples of defects. Although some 'defects' were work capable of being later completed, a competent tradesman would have attended to the issue before the work reached the stage being inspected. Exhaust ducts and condensing units were not adequately supported. Filters, to be installed at the back of fan coil units, were not installed. AI 269 is, on its face a clear direction by Mr Chan, then the superintendent, to rectify all matters reported by MacCormacks as requiring attention. It matters not that the document describes itself as an architect's instruction, not a superintendent's instruction. Mr Pozzebon followed up with a direction that Dura replace or correct the works. Mr Pozzebon noted another recurring theme of the dealings between the parties: that Dura did not provide shop drawings that met the approval standard required by the consultant, despite continual requests at site meetings. Dura promptly provided responses from its mechanical subcontractor, but, on four of the seven items, Mr Pozzebon rejected its response with a further cl 30.3 direction to Dura.

325 MacCormacks again inspected services on 25 July 2006, this time on the second floor. The MacCormacks' report passed to Dura by AI 329 the following day. The AI simply requires the contractor to address the issues noted in the report without delay and is not, standing alone, a cl 30.3 direction to Dura. On 18 August 2006, MacCormacks inspected the third and fourth floors. Their report identified 25 separate electrical, hydraulic, or mechanical items requiring rectification. Although some of the items might theoretically be described as incomplete, Dura were, by this stage, moving to plaster sheeting. Dura was not assuring Hue that the incomplete works would not disappear under plaster. Mr Chan passed the report to Dura by AI 392 and Mr Pozzebon gave an instruction that the rectification works be actioned. Again, it can be said of Mr Pozzebon's site instruction that is doesn't use the language of a cl 30.3 direction, but it hardly matters as the work of MacCormacks was overtaken.

326 In August 2006, Hue engaged Wood & Grieve, electrical, hydraulic and mechanical engineers, to obtain an independent assessment of the works and assist in the identification of defects. Following an initial inspection on 15 and 16 August, the first Wood & Grieve report, dated 18 August 2006 identified various types of mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical issues. Examples included condensate pipe with inadequate fall, poor duct work, lack of vibration isolation to fans, pipe work that was inadequately clipped or supported, or not properly identified, poor workmanship or lack of BCA compliance with pipe work penetrations through stud walls and concrete floor slabs, lack of separation of communication and power cables, poor workmanship in electrical rough in, poor workmanship or lack of BCA compliance with cable penetrations. Wood & Grieve inspected again on 24 August 2006. Two further reports dated 31 August 2006 and 7 September 2006 followed. These consolidated or cumulative reports also separately identified defects not previously observed or that were no longer observable. Mr Holman, the principal author of the reports, gave evidence at the trial.

327 This defects list was the consequence of an inspection of a prototype unit, unit 3, issued on 28 June 2006. The following day, JCB issued AI 284 instructing Dura to rectify the defects there recorded, commencing with a site meeting of relevant subcontractors and consultants. Dura did not challenge the validity of this direction.

328 Mr Burrows, a principal of JCB, wrote to Mr Hendricks personally expressing his concern about the quality of the built work on site identified in this defects list. He added further items from his own observation and requested Mr Hendricks' personal attendance at a site meeting to review these items.

329 A site instruction issued on 25 July 2006 by Mr Pozzebon, concerning tiling and level 4 windows, was included in the list of superintendent's directions for notice to show cause. Although it might be thought the language of this instruction did not comply with cl 30.3, Dura took no objection to it.

330 On 28 July 2006, Mr Chan issued AIs 333 and 334. The former instructed that electrical conduits be properly installed in unit 6, and the latter dealt with structural engineering issues. Dura was required to complete all matters noted in DF 2 prior to the structural engineer's inspection. Mr Pozzebon, on 31 July 2006 sent Dura a superintendent's direction in respect of each of these AIs. Dura responded accepting each instruction and promising immediate attention to the issue.

331 Mr Chan inspected again on 1 August 2006, concentrating on unit types D & F (which was units 10-21). An instruction followed (AI 340) identifying various issues that had been observed. On 4 August 2006, Mr Pozzebon directed Dura to rectify the matters noted in AI 340, within 14 days.

332 On 3 August 2006, Mr Chan exposed further issues. The openings for cavity doors on the first floor were non-compliant with the door schedule, drawing A6.02. The result was that the cavity slider heads did not align with the swinging door heads. By AI 345, Mr Chan suggested Dura install plasterboard bulkheads to avoid costly rectification. Another concern was the MDF doorframes in wet areas (AI 346). On 11 August 2006, Mr Pozzebon issued a cl 30.3 directions in respect of AI 345 and AI 346.

333 Following comments made on site, on 15 August 2006, Hue and Dura corresponded about the entry doors to the upper level apartments being narrower than specified. Dura disputed that this was so, but Mr Pozzebon, when directing rectification of the front entry doors, rejected its interpretation of the relevant drawing.

334 Mr Pozzebon made a further direction about toilet exhaust systems on 29 August 2006. This directions notice incorrectly describes this letter, but Dura well understood the issue. The further direction came about as a response to the mechanical services consultant noting the absence of exhausts, as required by the BCA.

335 I have set out the issues arising from the unit 29 re-design above at [266] and following.

336 Mr Pozzebon complained that the render was not acceptable at a site meeting on 31 May 2006 and Mr Maaser recalled that Hue's complaints about the render started at that time. Defects in the render on the east elevation was included in the revised defects list 1 on 8 June with the annotation 'render is of very poor quality, wall not straight, sections of render close to expansion joint uneven, discoloured, lighter patches'. Mr Chan described the render applied to the east façade by Dura as poorly finished, with a wavy, uneven surface and a burrow in the surface. Mr Chu gave evidence of like observations, specifically rejecting the suggestion that the defects were matters of incomplete work. Mr Maaser accepted that Hue instructed Dura to rectify defects in the render.

337 The dismantling of scaffolding at the west elevation permitted inspection by Mr Chan, which resulted in AI 310 outlining noted defects. Defects in the west elevation render were included in AI 310. On 21 July 2006 Mr Pozzebon drew Dura's attention to the contract specification for render and directed that Dura start to rectify the west elevation render by 28 July and complete the rectification by 11 August 2006.

338 Problems with the render were also identified in the Liquid Lines 'North Elevation L3 and L4 Defects' report dated 31 August 2006, which was included in both the directions notice and the defects notice. At the time this report was prepared, Dura was claiming, by progress claim 24 for work up to 24 August 2006, that the render was 92% complete.

339 A major concern with the render workmanship was the absence of binding mesh and expansion spaces. The specifications called for binding mesh. At a site meeting in September 2006, the render manufacturer's representative, MACRender, offered a manufacturer's warranty, which did not cover workmanship. Testing of the render confirmed there was no mesh or metal stops, a matter of concern to Mr Chan. Hue had used an acrylic render. Where a sand/cement render is applied, the contract will commonly specify that construction detail, to avoid cracking due to thermal expansion and contraction. Acrylic renders have sufficient flexibility to avoid the need for this detail. The product supplied, MACRender, is a two-coat system. It is comprised of a base coat and a top coat textured finish. Most renderers apply the base coat in two layers in order to get an even and flat finish and then apply the finished coat making it, in effect, a three-coat system.

340 Mr Pozzebon's response was that an acrylic render does not require a binding mesh to adhere to the blockwork, but Mr Pozzebon's concern was that Dura had not prepared the substrate correctly which is why the render was not plumb, and a mesh would have achieved a plumb surface. The surface of the render had bows and lipping around expansion joints and did not achieve the required finish. This was a major concern to Hue as the east elevation with its rendered finish was the street frontage of the project. A manufacturer's warranty was no advantage; the issue was workmanship, not material failure.

341 I am satisfied that photographs taken in late September and October 2006 show the defects complained of. When challenged by the cross-examiner with photographs of the defective render, Mr Maaser contended that generally these photographs, taken in a poor light, highlighted blemishes that may have been defects. However, Mr Maaser contended the proper classification was as work in progress. Even if I discount the photographs, the evidence of the observations of Mr Chan, Mr Pozzebon and Mr Chu remain. Mr Maaser asserted the application of a final coat would have dealt with these blemishes. It is open to doubt whether the assertion is genuine. Before applying that final coat, Dura removed the scaffolding. It was not attempting either to reinstate the scaffolding or to perform further work on the render by some other method. Mr Maaser invited me to accept that Dura intended to apply the final coat with a hired scissor lift. I consider that Hue was entitled to disregard such assertions. The scaffold was still in place on the north and south facades until October 2006, with Dura making no effort to correct defects in the render at that location while the scaffolding remained.

342 On 17 August 2006, Mr Pozzebon wrote to Mr Hendricks about site inspections carried out over the preceding week by Mr Trent Alexander, now appointed as superintendent's representative. A folder of documents accompanied this letter providing details. The folder contained inspection reports for each unit with sample photographs of defects. Mr Alexander had not inspected the works with a representative of Dura. Mr Hendricks' response was to dispute that Mr Alexander had been able, in the available time, to compile the defects report. Mr Hendricks considered that the photographs included in the defects list 4 materials were old photographs, and represented works that were substantially incomplete rather than defective. He was challenging the bona fides of defects list 4 in plain terms. Mr Hendricks asserted that an inspection of one unit, unit 2, revealed none of the identified defects. Not for the first time, Mr Hendricks stated that Mr Pozzebon was not impartial or honestly and fairly exercising his contractual function.

343 At trial, Dura contended that general descriptions of defects prevented precise identification of the defect. I reject this contention for two reasons. First, it was Dura's responsibility to complete the works to the contractual standard. Hue was undertaking a different task. It was monitoring whether Dura was adequately performing the contract. Second, the wealth of detail in the continual dealings between the parties contemporaneously provided a context for Dura that its counsel did not enjoy at trial. There was no impediment to Dura seeking clarification from Hue, but the contemporary dealings do not show that Dura sought any clarification. Dura's response was altogether different. Following on its challenge to Mr Pozzebon's integrity, which I consider misconceived, Dura demanded the presence of on-site management at all defects inspections, and that defects lists have a date and location reference. Mr Hendricks' response, when taken in the context of Dura's claims for the scaffolding provisional sum, its refusal to reveal its true program for the works and excessive claims for EOTs, the fact Dura did not have a system for quality control or any system for proper management of the work of its subcontractors, rightly concerned Mr Chu. I am satisfied that Dura's attitude, as these circumstances reveal it, was that an aggressive response was its only option to cover over a multitude of instances of unsatisfactory contractual performance. Equally illuminating is that there was no regular report to Mr Pozzebon or Mr Chan on the state that Dura's response to all the prior directions, instructions or defects lists had reached. Dura's response did not encourage Hue to expect that acceptable contractual performance was independently attainable by Dura. That is hardly surprising, given the repetition of earlier directions, instructions, or defects lists by Hue.

344 Mr Pozzebon replied to Dura that the quality of workmanship evident from defects list 4 was unacceptable. Mr Pozzebon noted that Dura's management appeared incapable of delivering a project to the quality requirements of the contract and the BCA and Australian Standards. Mr Pozzebon noted that the ground floor generally and units 1-27 inclusive all contained defective work requiring rectification. Dura was invited to seek clarification from Mr Alexander on site of any defect that it considered might no longer exist or not be located. Mr Pozzebon rejected the aspersions made against him personally and directed that Dura commence rectification of the matters notified and complete that rectification within 14 days. Mr Pozzebon, in particular, drew Mr Hendricks' attention to the requirements of the Gyprock steel frame systems installation guide concerning wall head details, attachments, procedures for CSR fire rated systems and electrical penetrations. He also drew attention to the rondo general installation information for walls, in particular wall studs, wall to ceiling junctions, direct fixing of furring channel battens, bulkhead installation and the details for non-fire rated suspended ceilings. Mr Pozzebon also noted Dura received Boral's drawings for the installation of fire rated plasterboard walls.

345 The report of an inspection of levels 3 and 4 on the north elevation was provided by Mr Pozzebon to Dura with a cl 30.3 direction that rectification commence immediately and be completed within 14 days. The opportunity to inspect these areas of the project, when it arose, led to identification of a substantial number of issues. The report identified issues of incorrect set out, inconsistent gaps between steel frames and timber strapping, incomplete structural steel work, poor concrete finishes to the underside of balconies that were under specification, incomplete rendering with areas of substandard finish quality and non-compliance with the render specification.

346 In May 2006, Mr Pozzebon appointed Dominic Borgia of DLB Projects Management to carry out regular inspections of the site and submit site inspection reports. I have noted that Trent Alexander became the superintendent's representative. In practice, Ken Alexander, from 22 August 2006, primarily performed the role of superintendent's representative. That role was to assist Mr Pozzebon with the monitoring of construction and quality control issues in the works on site, to assist Dura by being available to answer questions and approve rectification methods. Mr Pozzebon asked Mr Ken Alexander to approve the rectification of defects where he was able to make an assessment.

347 Ken Alexander, when advised by Dura that works were ready for further inspection or that rectification works had been completed, carried out an inspection. Defects were notified to Dura by the architect or the superintendent in a document, usually a 'defects lists' or an architect's instruction as is elsewhere described. Mr Alexander inspected the works, usually accompanied by Bob Balsden of Dura, to check rectification in accordance with the requirements of the specification and good building practice of the identified defects. He provided sign-off in relation to specific defects, following Mr Pozzebon's instruction that if an identified defect had been rectified he should confirm that fact. The sign-offs occurred during a short but critical period of the project.

348 It was not Mr Alexander's job to identify defective work, and he could not certify defective work that required the assessment of an appropriately qualified consultant. Whether Mr Alexander's sign-offs constituted a warranty or a certificate of due compliance for Dura's benefit was a matter of debate.

349 Mr Alexander confirmed to Dura that units were ready for sheeting. Mr Hendricks suggested that Mr Alexander had verbally signed off on the defects on level three referred to in defects list 4. I accept Mr Alexander's denial, his confirmation that he did not give verbal approvals, but signed the document that recorded the work that he was inspecting. Mr Alexander inspected the services the subject of the Wood & Grieve report dated 31 August 2006 and signed off the majority of items in that report. I am satisfied that these sign-offs are specific to the identified items and it was not the case that Mr Alexander was providing acceptance of any matters that required a professional consultant's review. Thus, when Mr Alexander signed off on the rough-in of the electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic services for unit 19-25 and 27, confirming that the necessary wires, cables and pipes were in place and clipped, he was not signing off that the requirements of the services engineers were satisfied.

350 On 6 and 9 September 2006, Mr Alexander inspected the level 2 and 3 corridors and approved and signed off on the works as follows: 'Corridors to levels 2 & 3 are now completed Ready for fire rated plaster to both sides to full height of walls, all services been inspected'. This does not amount to a sign-off of installed plasterboard. It is an acknowledgement that the corridor on level 2 and 3 is ready for fire rated plasterboard and that penetrations through fire rated walls to the corridors on these levels had been caulked. It is not a sign-off of all penetrations through fire rated walls. Mr Brunner maintained that on 19 September 2006 Mr Alexander signed off on the electrical work the subject of AI 329. Mr Alexander did not acknowledge the signature on the document as his. In any event, Dura could not have assumed that Mr Alexander could sign off on work of that sort.

351 By 7 September 2006, Mr Pozzebon was concerned that Dura was asserting rectification, but when Hue sought inspection, Dura maintained that inspection was premature or else denied appropriate access for inspection. On 8 September 2006, Mr Pozzebon required that Dura confirm by letter, with a 48 hour minimum notice period, that it had rectified all defective works areas prior to re-inspection by the superintendent's representative. Mr Pozzebon then instructed Mr Alexander not to sign off unless Dura had given appropriate notice so that he, along with Mr Chan or the appropriate consultant could inspect the works if necessary. Mr Pozzebon stated that he required this procedure to be followed to ensure that the rectification works met the standard required under the contract and to require Dura to put in place its own quality assurance procedures rather than relying on external consultants to perform that function.

Hue's decision to serve notices to show cause

352 The attention to the quality of Dura's work that Mr Chu directed once his concerns were aroused resulted in careful scrutiny of the project throughout July and August 2006. On 23 August 2006, Mr Chu wrote to Mr Pozzebon describing his extreme concern over the nature and extent of defect issues in the project, especially the failure to construct to the Building Code of Australia and fire regulations. Mr Chu requested Mr Pozzebon to obtain a sign-off by the consultants and/or Liquid Lines on the rectification of defects before Dura sheeted any further plasterboard.

353 Mr Chu also conducted his own detailed inspection, with Mr Hon Wong, to compile his own defects report. Hon Wong took photographs illustrating observations during the inspection while Mr Chu identified and described the defects shown in the photographs. Their report became the SC Land Internal Defects Report of 31 August 2006. This list took the form of a summary of defects, which was not a comprehensive, or exhaustive, assessment.

354 Mr Pozzebon issued a superintendent's direction to Mr Hendricks on 1 September 2006 Dura was instructed to immediately confer with the superintendent's representative to organise a rectification process to be completed within 28 days or as agreed. Mr Pozzebon commented that the numerous types of defects documented in the report demonstrated a failure to comply with fire rating, BCA codes, Australian and Industry Standards, Manufacturers recommendations and the drawings and specifications. The nature of the defects identified is summarised in the following list.

1. Penetrations in plaster not properly cut or cored thus compromising Fire rating

1. Lack of deflection plates for the metal stud work

1. Lack of proper fire rated sealant around penetrations

1. Excessive gaps between fire-rated plasterboards

1. Installation of MDF doorframes when soft timber was clearly specified in the specifications

1. Services exposed and not properly fire-protected

1. Incorrect use of masonite packers in feature round windows

1. Lack of adequate fire collars for penetrations through the slab

1. Water-Resistant plasterboard not installed to manufacturers specifications

1. No fire rated GPO in fire rated plasterboard wall

1. Damage to edges of fire-rated plasterboard compromising the fire rating

1. Incorrectly installed electrical cables running in parallel with data cables

1. Sections of wall not properly covered thus compromising fire rated

1. Non-compliant use of flexi duct in the kitchen exhaust

11. Steel support for stairs installed incorrectly

1. Rangehood exhaust to have PVC piping not flexi duct

1. Vibration isolation mounts not installed to all the fan-coil units

1. Location of fan-coil units not properly adjusted affecting the centering of Air Grills within the apartments

1. Unit 29 roof framing not built to structural engineers specifications

1. Some AIC condensate drains do not have proper fall

1. Entrance door openings (plaster to plaster width) to 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and Penthouse units not 1000mm as specified

1. Refrigerant pipes have damaged insulation that can cause long term water damage to plaster ceilings

1. AIC condensers mounted both on the roof and in the basement are not properly secured posing potential safety hazards

355 I am satisfied that by the end of August 2006, Mr Chu had personally observed many instances of defective and non-compliant works of the types categorised in this list. He had received reports from the architect, the superintendent, the superintendent's representative, and other independent consultants Hue had engaged. The concerns raised about the progress and standard of the works, and Dura's compliance with the contract and superintendent's directions, were extensive and wide ranging. Mr Chu reasonably believed that Dura was not acting to alleviate Hue's concerns that it was not adequately performing the contract. He considered the integrity of the project to be at real risk and in a position that could be frankly described as untenable. Mr Chu could not identify that Dura was properly managing the project or had proper quality control processes in place. His concerns in this regard were well founded as Dura has not been able to persuade me that the project was properly managed and I am satisfied that Dura wholly failed to comply with cl 30.2 of the contract regarding quality assurance. The evidence did not show that there was a workable quality assurance system in place on the project. I accept that Mr Chu's confidence that Dura could complete the project in compliance with the contract by then had been seriously undermined. Dura's attitude to Hue's concerns was one of resistance and non-cooperation, which exacerbated Mr Chu's lack of confidence of satisfactory performance. Its employees refused to co-operate with the superintendent in various respects, the failure to provide the electronic files for the MS Project being a prime example. By this time, adjudicated progress claims revealed a wide discrepancy between Dura's claims and the WT Partnership certificates that was partly explained by the scaffolding provisional sum claims, which justly aroused Mr Chu's suspicions.

356 In summary, Mr Chu rightly concluded, at the end of August, that the project was hopelessly late. Dura was not following through on representations that it would comply with directions from the superintendent, which were increasing, rather than contracting, in frequency. Many serious defects in compliance with contractual standards had not only been personally observed by Mr Chu, but concerned Hue's consultants, particularly the architects, Mr Dominic Borgia, Liquid Lines, Wood & Grieve, Boral, MacCormacks, and Maurice Farrugia & Associates. The plastering work was of poor quality throughout, particularly as Dura ignored contractual tolerances and specified fixing methods. Plasterwork was not flush, plumb, or straight. Dura did not correctly set out the Lord Street façade. There were gaps between steel and the rendered wall, poor or unsightly welding and the render work to the façade showed many instances of cracking, staining, and waving. The need for solutions to deal with incorrectly set out work compromised the structural work, while numerous instances of exposed structural steel reinforcement were a serious concern, bringing the possibility of compromise to the structural integrity of the building. Dura appeared to be making an effort to finalise works by covering over non-compliant work and there were many instances where departure from contractual standards was becoming difficult, if not impossible to rectify. Hue incurred substantial additional expense not only by the prolongation of the project but also by the need to employ its consultants continually to monitor Dura's work for compliance.

357 Mr Pozzebon identified what he considered the more significant un-rectified defects at this time -

(a) width of the entry doors to apartments. The entrances to apartments on levels 2 and 3, except for two non-standard units, were required to have a 1000mm clear opening from plasterboard to plasterboard. This was never achieved;

(b) incorrect expansion joint and waterproofing detail in wet areas. Dura was responsible under the contract for properly constructing and obtaining approval for the location of any construction joints in the concrete. Despite multiple architects' instructions and site instructions between 22 June and 29 August 2006, this did not occur. Further, Dura did not correctly provide waterproofing to the expansion joints in wet areas, a defect which still existed when Dura left the site;

(c) the rendering was not finished to the standard required by the architectural specification. The render layer had many imperfections and was of poor quality. Dura failed to ensure that edges, lines, and expansion joints were straight;

(d) plasterboard defects including non-compliance with manufacturer's recommendations and full workmanship. Mr Pozzebon observed that the plasterboard installed by Dura involved an incorrect installation of fire rated plasterboards. Mr Pozzebon in particular noticed insufficient screw fixing and inappropriate offsetting of joins. There were major defects in finishes and workmanship including gaps in plasterboard. There were incorrect setouts, specifically the door widths and the doors were misaligned with mullions. Dura failed to install water resistant plasterboard in bathrooms and laundries as required by the architectural specification. There was vibration, unevenness, and poor installation. There was a failure to use standard recommended fixings in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions;

(e) condenser units on roof/basement not promptly fixed. The airconditioning condensers on both the roof and in the basement had not been properly fixed down. This defect was noted in numerous ways and was never rectified by Dura;

(f) ceiling heights - fixing methods. A rondo key lock adjustable suspension system for the ceiling had been specified in the architectural specification.

358 On 31 August 2006, Mr Chu wrote to Mr Khor explaining why he considered it was necessary for Hue to issue show cause notices to Dura under the contract. Having been heating up for some time, this was the point at which matters came to the boil. In the months prior to the service of the first set of notices, Hue had been consulting with solicitors who apparently advised it how to enforce its contractual rights. That it did so was appropriate and I reject Dura's proposition that Hue mounted a campaign, secretly assisted by its solicitors, to terminate Dura's contract in order to enhance the constructed design because it was not achieving sales. I am satisfied that by 31 August 2006, Hue had determined not only honestly, but reasonably, that Dura had committed the substantial breaches that are alleged in the notices to show cause. Taking the advice of its solicitors before such significant action confirms the careful and prudent approach of Mr Chu that was evident in all of his dealings.

359 On 4 September 2006, Hue served four notices to show cause, with annexures, to Dura pursuant to cl 44.2 of the contract, regarding -

(a) failure to provide evidence of insurance in breach of cl 21.1 of the contract (notice to show cause 1);

(b) failure to use the standard of materials or provide the standards of workmanship required by the contract in breach of cl 30.1 of the contract (notice to show cause 2);

(c) failure to comply with a direction of the superintendent under cl 30.3 of the contract, in breach of cl 23 of the contract (notice to show cause 4); and

(d) failure to proceed with the works with due expedition and without delay in breach of cl 33.1 of the contract (notice to show cause 3).

I accept Mr Chu's evidence that the set of notices that were served on 4 September included, as annexures, the documents referenced in the lists that form part of the notices. The insurance notice is no longer in issue.

360 Mr Pozzebon assisted in the preparation of the materials incorporated into the show cause notices. He knew that at the time the show cause notices were delivered, Dura had failed to use the standards of workmanship required by the contract, had failed to comply with Mr Pozzebon's directions and had failed to proceed with the works with due diligence and without delay. With the assistance of his administrative staff, Mr Pozzebon compiled a list of the directions with which he understood Dura had not fully complied. These directions included defects lists and instructions previously issued. He checked the compiled set of documents for relevance and sent them on to Hue. He did not check whether any defects or issues contained within the correspondence had been rectified or complied with before sending the correspondence to Hue. This was the extent of his involvement in creating the show cause notices. Mr Pozzebon had asked Dura on a number of occasions, including at site meetings and when issuing directions, to provide him with notification when defects were rectified; but this frequently did not happen. This explains why the notices were so comprehensive. When later evaluating Dura's responses to the show cause notice Mr Pozzebon took into account items that he then knew Dura had satisfactorily completed.

361 The directions notice, on its face, identified 49 items of correspondence directed to Dura, 28 items were letters from Mr Pozzebon, 11 items were site instructions and the remaining items were architect's instructions and the architect's defects list. There was some overlap in that letters from Mr Pozzebon gave a formal direction about site instructions and the show cause notice separately listed some of those instructions and directions. The valid directions were the following, most of which have already been referred to in chronological context:

(a) materials and workmanship defects - defects list 1 in its original and revised forms , SI 38, AI 345, AI 346, defects list 4, AI 380, AI 413, Internal Defects Report dated 31 August 2006 - items 1, 2, 5, 13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 37, 38, 43, 47, and 49;

(b) structural defects - defects list 2, AI 205, AI 228, AI 334, AI 340, AI 343, SI 32/AI 315, superintendent's direction of 1 September 2006 - items 3, 10, 16, 17, 18, 27, 29, 34, 48;

(c) fire safety issues following an inspection by the building surveyor - AI 210 (item 4);

(d) mechanical hydraulic and electrical services - AI 269, AI 329/SI 43, AI 333, SI 92 - items 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 23, 32, 35

(e) plasterwork, including fire safety issues - AI 309 - item 11, 33; and,

(f) render issues - AI 310, superintendent's direction of 1 September 2006 - item 12, 27, 48.

362 The list of directions in the notice included a direction to provide a credit for the deletion of unit 28 from the works shown on tender drawings (item 7 in the list). This is a direction under cl 40 and cannot stand as proper particulars of a substantial breach under cl 30. I do not consider items 14 and 23 in the list, AI 329 and AI 392 (SI 93) to be valid directions. I do not consider items 20 (SI 65) and 24 (SI 87/AI 384) in the list, to be valid directions. They are responses to requests for information. Likewise, some of the later entries in the list are not strictly directions under cl 30.3 although they relate to defective work. Item 30 in the list, AI 209, is the architect's instruction modifying the design for the windows in the east elevation consequent upon incorrect set out. Item 31, AI 229 deals with a number of the structural engineering consultant's issues raised May 2006, but it does not use the language of a superintendent's direction under cl 30.3. Likewise, Item 36, AI 330/SI 44, does not use the language of a superintendent's direction under cl 30.3 when providing an instruction about the taping and finishing of plasterboard sheets in accordance with specifications. The same observation is made of item 41 (SI 97/AI 398), which is about ceiling and benchtop heights. Item 39, AI 385/SI 89, is an instance of Hue accepting incorrectly set out work in lieu of requiring rectification and is not, as such, a direction under cl 30.3. Dura is technically correct in contending that items 40 (AI 398), 42, (AI 401), 44 (AI 405), 45 (AI 406), and 46 (AI 406/SI 105) are not superintendent's directions because Mr Chan was no longer superintendent and there is no evidence of a direction from Mr Pozzebon in relation to those instructions, either at all or in appropriate language.

363 Fifteen of the items raised by the directions notice were not valid directions and, allowing for duplication, approximately 23-25 items were particulars of directions on which Hue can base its allegation of substantial breach.

364 The defects notice listed, and included, copies of eleven reports that provided the particulars of the substantial breach alleged by the notice. Mr Pozzebon provided to Dura all of these reports, with a direction under cl 30.3 and I have mentioned them elsewhere in that context. Unlike the directions notice, the defects notice only relied on reports dated between 3 August and 1 September 2006.

365 The expedition notice informed Dura that it was not proceeding with the works with due expedition and without delay, in breach of cl 33.1. The notice stated, as particulars, that the contractor was not proceeding with the works with due expedition and without delay, because:

• the date for practical completion as extended by the superintendent was 18 October 2006;
• the contractor had failed to obtain approval for a construction program. The current unapproved construction program failed to show the critical path and was deficient in seven other identified respects;
• construction to the contractor's unapproved program would delay completion of the works until 5 March 2007 and Dura's Mr Khor had confirmed that the works were proceeding to completion in 2007; and,
• the progress of the works is delayed and no explanation of the slow rate of progress has been given.

366 Mr Pozzebon kept a record of the EOT claims made by Dura during the course of the project. The architect assessed claims numbered 1 to 7 and Mr Pozzebon assessed the remainder. Dura made EOT claims without making allowance for concurrency of the delaying event or for claims that did not affect upon the critical path of the works. A chart that Mr Pozzebon provided to assist the court illustrated these matters. At the time of issue of the notice, the superintendent had assessed all submitted EOT claims and in this respect, too, I accept Mr Pozzebon's evidence.

What are the requirements as to the form of a notice to show cause under cl 44 of the contract

367 A curious debate developed at trial, resulting from a lack of attention by Dura to its pleadings. The issue developed from the re-service, on 11 September 2006, of the notices to show cause initially served on 4 September 2006. The notices were in identical form save that the second set of notices served on 11 September 2006 specified a time and date for showing cause that was 7 clear days after the notice was given. Apart from the question of what accompanied the served notices, this proposition was not in issue.

368 Dura responded to the notices dated 4 September 2006 by hand delivering two folders of documents on 8 September 2006 under cover of a letter from its solicitor. Dura did not accept the validity of the show cause notices, asserting that the board of directors of Hue had not properly resolved to authorise the procedure. Secondly, Mr Noble contended that Hue did not act in good faith when issuing the show cause notices, pointing to both the timing of the notices and the number of notices issued all requiring compliance by the same allotted time and date. Mr Noble contended that this conduct was oppressive. Mr Noble pointed out that Hue must be satisfied, before taking any further step under cl 44.4, that Dura had failed to show reasonable cause as to why Hue should not do so. Mr Noble contended that Hue was obliged to consider reasonably each of Dura's responses. Finally, Mr Noble noted that the time specified by the notices for compliance was less than the seven clear days mandated by the contract. Mr Noble did not complain that Dura was not served with, or could not readily identify, the referenced documents listed in the notices.

369 Hue referred this issue to its solicitors who re-issued the notices on 11 September 2006 permitting Dura until 10.00 am on 19 September 2006 to show cause. Hue's solicitors also wrote to Mr Noble observing that while Dura complained of insufficient time to respond in accordance with the terms of the contract, it had provided its response well prior to the deadline nominated. To avoid any argument further notices to show cause were served and Mr Noble was informed that the notices were in the same form save for the time for compliance and that Hue did not waive its rights arising from the initial show cause notices.

370 Hue sent a letter to the same effect directly to Mr Khor and it is noted as received at 2.40 pm on 11 September 2006. That letter records that the copy of it sent to Mr Noble included the show cause notices 'without attachments'. Dura did use the further opportunity open until 19 September 2006 to present material to Hue for showing cause.

371 When Dura issued proceedings, its central claim was that Hue's notice under cl 44.4 taking the work out of its hands was invalid and of no force or effect. However, it was not until its third further amended statement of claim, served by leave during the course of the trial on 4 November 2011, that Dura referred to the notices dated 11 September 2006 in advancing its contentions. In its earlier pleadings, Dura had not alleged that the notices were invalid for not permitting sufficient time to show cause. While Dura advanced its allegations in the proceeding on the original notices, Hue by its defence admitted the original notices, as particularised, alleged the fact of re-service, and relied on the second set of notices. The re-served notices were available for inspection. I was informed that Hue was only relying on the re-served notices, there being no issue raised on the pleadings that the notices were not accompanied by copies of referenced documents. Yet there emerged, at trial, an issue about what Hue served on 11 September 2006.

372 Dura amended its statement of claim shortly prior to trial, adding particular allegations as to why the notices were defective or invalid to its pleading. Curiously, Dura's pleading still based its allegations on the notices of 4 September 2006. Those allegations did not include an allegation that Hue did not contemporaneously serve the superintendent's directions and the other documents referenced in the notices. Mr Khor had sworn an affidavit on 28 September 2006, in the interim injunction proceedings, stating that Hue served additional documents beyond those identified by Mr Noble in his affidavit. Mr Khor deposed that Mr Noble had not exhibited to his affidavit the bundles of documents that accompanied two of the four notices and he produced them.

373 I am satisfied that the issue of whether documents referenced in the notices of 11 September 2006 were re-served only became an issue during trial. It emerged during debate over the contents of the supposedly agreed core bundle of documents and had its genesis in the fact that when the notices were re-served, unlike Dura, Dura's solicitor, Mr Noble, was only provided with the actual notices. In a long and complex trial, this was a minor issue, capable of co-operative resolution. Hue was entitled, on the pleadings as they then stood and bearing in mind the filed affidavits, to consider there was no issue about what it served. It was incumbent on Dura to raise any different allegation of fact in support of its contentions about the validity of the notices, both in its pleadings and in its evidence. Rather, counsel for Dura implied there might be some confusion in the interpretation of Mr Khor's statement in the affidavit. In proceedings in the TEC list, the court will not permit a party to take such an issue by pleading a general joinder of issue in a defence. Although there was ample opportunity during the course of the trial, Dura neither applied to raise the issue by amendment of its pleading,[39] nor called evidence from Mr Khor to explain or contradict his affidavit of 28 September 2006.

374 In due course, I will explain why, in my view, the notices sufficiently comply with the requirements of the contract, as the documents are properly referenced within the notices and service of further copies was not necessary for their validity. If that conclusion was in error, I am in any event satisfied that copies of the documents, referenced in the notices, were served on Dura, although not on its solicitor. I am assisted in reaching that conclusion, in the absence of direct evidence of service, by the absence of the issue on the pleadings and in contemporaneous correspondence, and the failure of Mr Khor to give evidence about what was served on Dura.

Contractual requirements for a show cause notice

375 The requirements of a notice by the principal to show cause under cl 44 of the contract are set out in cl 44.3. The notice must:

(a) state that it is a notice under cl 44;

(b) specify the alleged substantial breach;

(c) require the contractor to show cause in writing why the principal should not exercise a right referred to in cl 44.4;

(d) specify the time and date by which the contractor must show cause (not less than seven clear days after notice is given); and

(e) specify the place at which cause is to be shown.

376 The dispute between the parties focussed on the requirement that the notice specify the alleged substantial breach. That the breaches alleged were substantial was not in issue. The contract, by cl 44.2 defines that term and it includes:

(a) failing to proceed with due expedition and without delay in breach of cl 33.1;

(b) failing to use the standard of materials or provide the standards of workmanship required by the contract, in breach of cl 30.1; and

(c) failing to comply with a direction of the superintendent under cl 30.3, in breach of cl 23.

Dura's contentions focused on the manner, and content, of the obligation to specify the alleged substantial breach.

Dura's contentions about the directions and defects notices

377 Dura's first general contention, supporting the proposition that the notices were invalid, affected the directions notice and the defects notice, each of which was said to be confusing, prolix and obtuse. A further complaint was that such notices did not specify with sufficient particularity the alleged items of defective workmanship to identify the substantial breach. Dura's complaint was that each specific respect in which it failed to comply with the following directions issued by the superintendent or failed to use the standard of materials or provide the standards of workmanship required by the contract, in breach of cl 30.1 was not precisely articulated in each notice. Following the approach of counsel who recognised that some objections applied equally to each notice, I have not attempted to separate out all complaints when dealing with the contentions in relation to each notice.

378 In the case of the directions notice, the notice referred to a list of 49 items of correspondence. The result was a bundle of letters, instructions, and consultant's reports, which filled several lever arch folders. Dura contended that some documents referred to in the referenced material contained ambiguous references to other associated documents. The defects notice was different in form to the directions notice. Where the directions notice gave particulars of the substantial breach by a reference list, the defects notice had copies of the documents as attachments, behind numbered tabs, in a folder. A similar mixture of documents, with significant commonality, constituted each reference list. Dura contended that many of the objections taken to the directions notice applied to the defects notice rendering it ambiguous, confusing, prolix, and obtuse. The reference material was in excess of 365 pages, including hundreds of photographs.

379 Dura submitted that these issues of form raised the following considerations. Could a valid direction of the superintendent under cl 30.3 of the contract be identified? Some items of correspondence were not valid superintendent's directions because they were architect instructions from Mr Chan rather than superintendent's directions, although Mr Chan was the superintendent until 17 July 2006. Other later items of correspondence were AIs that could not constitute directions, as Mr Chan was then no longer the superintendent. Items of correspondence from Mr Pozzebon before 17 July 2006 were directions given by him when he was merely the superintendent's representative, lacking delegated authority regarding defects. In other cases, the language used in the communication was the basis for Dura's contentions. Dura submitted that a defects list was not a direction under cl 30.3, and some referenced AIs did not use language that could constitute a direction. An example was AI 210 dated 3 May 2006. Dura contended that this communication was not a direction under cl 30.3, but was an AI stating that the contractor is to ensure that the stated conditions were met, following on from inspection by the building surveyor. Another example was Mr Pozzebon's letter dated 26 June 2006 concerning credit for a variation affecting unit 28, which did not concern defective work or materials. There was duplication in the references, because either the same document was listed twice or the enumeration of source documents doubled up (e.g. there were two AI 309s).

380 Dura contended that Hue simply bundled together all possibly relevant documents for inclusion in the notice without checking whether the referenced material was still applicable, that is, whether the direction had been complied with or the defect rectified. Within the identified directions, at least 935 individual alleged defects were referenced when, prior to the issue of the notice to show cause, many defects had been rectified. Thus, Dura contended that the particulars of substantial breach included directions that had been complied with, directions where it was now not possible to precisely identify the extent and or part of the directions not complied with and directions where the imprecise and vague nature of the referenced material meant it was impossible to precisely identify what was the direction given.

381 Dura contended that by including invalid directions or directions that incorrectly allege default, it was prejudiced. Dura contended it was required not only to revisit alleged corrected defects, but also to sort through the particularised directions to make a value judgment as to the proper response to Hue when showing cause.

382 Next, Dura submitted that it is unreasonable for Hue to serve a notice to show cause which is, in these ways, confusing, prolix and obtuse, which specifically includes directions which are invalid, have been complied with, or are otherwise uncertain, and which covers 953 separate items of alleged defective work. Thus Hue was in breach of an implied term that it would at all material times act reasonably in serving a cl 44.2 notice.

383 Dura developed a contention of unreasonableness in another context: the time allowed for cause to be shown. It was not in issue that the time permitted by the first notices served on 4 September 2006 was less than the 7 days stipulated in cl 44.3. Dura's solicitor made this point by letter dated 8 September 2006 and Hue immediately accepted that objection by re-serving the notices. Dura accepts that the notices re-served on 11 September 2006 gave Dura 7 clear days to show cause and Hue relies on the later notices. Dura concedes that the re-served notices were in substantially the same form and that it actually used the full period from 4 to 19 September to respond to the notices. Nonetheless, Dura contends that having regard to the vast number of issues raised, this period was unreasonable.

384 Generally, the common law adopts a strict approach to contractual requirements that may permit the principal to terminate the contract for unremediated breach in the period following the service of a notice. A common form is that the contractual provision permits either a self-executing notice, or a second notice, that unless breach is remedied, the contract is terminated. Dura sought to develop its submission by reverence to conveyancing cases.[40] However, issues of forfeiture can arise upon termination of leases or contracts that create equitable interests on specific performance that are absent from the building cases. The different considerations that may arise in relation the forfeiture of interests in property are not appropriate to construing a notice to exercise a power of determination in a construction contract.[41]

385 Under AS 2124-1992 on substantial breach by the contractor, the principal is not entitled by the contract to immediately elect to terminate the contract or take the work out of the hands of the contractor. The right to take either course of action does not automatically follow failure to rectify the breach after the service of a notice. The contractor has the opportunity to influence the principal's choice about its response to its substantial breach by showing reasonable cause to the notice that the principal had served. The process affords to the contactor an opportunity to show cause why the principal should not exercise those rights at all.

386 Clause 44 does not contemplate that the contractor's response needs to be to rectify the breach that is the subject of the notice. The clause is primarily concerned with future performance, not rectification.[42] AS 2124-1992 requires that the principal name expressly, or mention definitely, the alleged substantial breach. It does not require that the principal detail or particularise each matter constituting the default. The response expected is not necessarily an activity-based response, remediation within the time permitted, not less than 7 days. The clause contemplates that the notice will require the contractor's response in writing, at a place nominated by the notice and by a time and date specified by the notice. The process of showing cause under cl 44 requires communication, not necessarily just rectification. Thus, a contractor who remedied its breach but failed to communicate to the principal that it had done so, would fail to show reasonable cause and the principal could proceed to exercise a cl 44.4 right. The contract does not contemplate that the principal must discover for itself whether a substantial breach has been remedied after notice before so doing.

387 In Brenmar Building Co Pty Ltd v University of Newcastle,[43] the NSW Court of Appeal held that 'both authority and commonsense ... fully support the view that to inform a builder that he has not been proceeding with the general task which he has been given - not with a particular item - in a competent manner or with reasonable diligence is a sufficient specification'. In Re Stewardson Stubbs & Collett Pty Ltd & Bankstown Municipal Council[44] Moffat J dispatched a contention, that Dura advanced in this proceeding about the expedition notice - that it was not sufficient, in order to specify a default, to merely state that the contractor had failed to proceed with reasonable diligence. His Honour stated:

It has been argued it is not sufficient merely to refer to the failure to proceed with reasonable diligence. A default can be specified in two ways; one is by directing attention to the provision in the contract in respect of which default is made. The other is by giving particulars of the manner in which a breach has occurred. In order to specify the default I think at least the former must be pointed out. But each case will depend on its own circumstances as to whether in order to specify the default there must be added some particulars as will identify the particular breach alleged. Thus a default under sub-clause (3) [failure to comply with notices] may well require some further specification so that the builder is put in the position to discontinue the default which is complained of. Somewhat different considerations apply with regard to sub-clauses (1) [suspending work] and (2) [failing to proceed with reasonable diligence or in a competent manner] where the mere reference to the clause] said to be in breach may be sufficient to specify the default ... what is called for is not a repair of the consequences of past lack of diligence but compliance in a substantial and commercial sense with the general obligations under the contract. Accordingly, I think a notice which is in general terms referring to the breach of the general obligation is a notice which does specify the default.

388 Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts,[45] state the general rule concerning modern contractual determination clauses that require written notice in one form or another at the time of determination of the contract in these terms:

Express notice requirements are often in 'two tier' form ... In every case the clause must be carefully considered and closely followed in all respects, both as to the contents and timing of the notices, but the courts will usually regard the notices as commercial documents, and the modern approach is to interpret notice clauses with regard to their commercial purpose [Mannai Investments Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance [1997] UKHL 19; [1997] AC 749]. Provided a reasonable recipient of the notice can be left in no reasonable doubt as to its meaning the form of words used will usually not be important. The contents of the notice then have to be matched against the relevant requirements in order to determine whether it meets them [Trafford MBC v Total Fitness (UK) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1513, at [49]]. Applying this principle notices referring the reader to the applicable clause of the contract and identifying the default are generally likely to be sufficient. [Re Stewardson Stubbs & Collett Pty Ltd & Bankstown Municipal Council [1965] NSWR 1671 see also Shell Egypt West Manzala GmbH v Dana Gas Egypt Ltd [2010] EWHC 465 (Comm)]. On the other hand, time limits or requirements will ordinarily require strict compliance, particularly those requiring continuation of a default for a specified period [Eriksson v Whalley [1071] 1 NSWLR 397]. Particularly where a determination clause is conditioned on a number of different eventualities or defaults of the contractor, it is evident that any required preliminary notice should sufficiently identify the particular ground relied upon, if that is called for by the contract (and particularly where continuation of the default is made a condition of any second notice), but further detail, particularly in regard to a generalised ground like due diligence, will not usually be called for.

389 The corresponding passage in an earlier edition (11th) of Hudson is cited with approval by the NSW Court of Appeal in Hometeam Constructions Pty Ltd v McCauley[46] following review of the construction, and other, cases.

390 The Court of Appeal of this court, in MLW Technology Pty Ltd v May,[47] in the context of a licensing agreement, considered the principles relevant to interpreting the effect of contractual notices. Gillard AJA[48] emphasised that in construing commercial contracts, and the actions of businessmen, a common sense non-technical approach should be adopted.[49] Gillard AJA approved of the observations of the House of Lords in Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd[50] finding them to accord with authority in this court. A reasonable recipient, in the circumstances of the parties is aware of the terms of the contract, of the correspondence that has passed between the parties, and of the history of the building project. A builder would have had extensive knowledge of the works.

391 The process contemplated by cl 44 of AS 2124-1992 defers the principal's right to determine its response to a substantial breach from the time of discovery of the breach until after an opportunity to show cause has been afforded to the contractor. To my mind, that is an important distinction. Showing cause why a principal should not exercise a choice whether to exercise, at all or to elect between different, contractual rights contemplates a process of communication between principal and contractor. This process may involve a broad range of considerations, enlivening analysis of the particular circumstances of each party's performance of the contract. Because this process differs from implementing a decision to terminate the contract, a notice can effectively convey what is amiss, without providing detailed particulars of the state the works must be in when the period expires, to avoid termination of the contract.

392 Under AS 2124-1992, the contractor may show reasonable cause why the principal should take no action, or no immediate action, or accept or impose agreed conditions while continuing to require performance from the contractor. It cannot be that the opportunity to show cause is limited to whether the principal ought to terminate the contract or take the works out of the contractor's hands. The process of showing cause, for a defaulting party, in the period after the innocent party's notice, is conditioned by the form and content of the notice and the consequence for that party of the innocent party's response to the cause shown. That the opportunity provided to the contractor in the period after notice from the principal under AS 2124-1992 is to show cause, not to remedy its breach, is a relevant consideration in determining the approach to be adopted by the principal in giving notice, the contractor in showing cause and the principal in its response to cause shown. Where, unlike AS 2142, the effective consequence for the contractor is self-executing termination of the contract by the principal if there is not rectification of the substantial breach within the period, the principal will have determined to terminate on the contractor's failure to rectify within the specified period, before the notice is first given. Then the principal's notice will need to be necessarily detailed and specific in its requirements.

393 Dura contended that the notices failed for want of detailed and specific particulars of breach. In Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd,[51] Megarry J considered a like contention concluding:

I do not read this condition as requiring the architect, at his peril, to spell out accurately in his notice further and better particulars, as it were, of the particular default in question. All that I think the notice need do is to direct the contractor's mind to what is said to be amiss: and this was plainly done by this notice. If the contractor had sought particulars of the alleged default and had been refused them, other considerations might have arisen.

The observations that I noted earlier about common sense interpretations of commercial documents with regard to their commercial purpose remain apposite.

394 In Re White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd,[52] whether the notice must be self-contained or may incorporate, by reference, material not actually served was raised but not decided. The proceeding was an application by the builder for summary determination of the validity of notices given by the principal. The contract in that case, the parties used JCCB 1985, was materially different to AS 2124-1992 and it permitted the principal to serve a notice that it intended to determine the employment of the builder under the agreement unless the substantial breach specified in the notice was remedied in terms consistent with the contract within 10 days. The contract provided that the principal's notice specify and detail the default relied upon.

395 Byrne J reasoned that a notice would not be effective unless the detail of the default is clearly identified. Referring to earlier authority,[53] he held that the notice must be unequivocal in order to convey what was amiss. Were it otherwise, the giving of the notice would be an empty gesture. This consequence followed because it was only if the notice descends to the particularity of not merely specifying the substantial breach, but also detailing the default relied upon, that the builder could avail itself of the opportunity provided by the contract to remedy the default and avoid the serious consequences that might follow. The provisions of the contract expressly contemplated a form of self-executing procedure. The architect's notice did not set out the necessary detail of the principal's complaint and was held to be a notice that did not meet the requirements of the contract. For present purposes, the distinction between taking the opportunity to remedy the default to avoid the consequences of an intention to terminate and showing cause as to why the principal should not exercise a right referred to in cl 44.4 can be noted. Under AS 2124-1992, an imperative for the principal to detail each default or defect relied on to constitute the substantial breach does not arise from the express terms of cl 44.

396 This is not to say that a notice under cl 44.3 would sufficiently specify the alleged substantial breach if it merely identified one of the sub-paragraphs of cl 44.2, the clause which states, without limitation, what matters may amount to substantial breaches. The type of substantial breach in issue will determine the form of specification in the notice. Providing the opportunity for the contractor to show reasonable cause determines the content of the notice. Some forms of substantial breach - such as failing to provide evidence of insurance, or failing to lodge security - relate to single events. The method for showing cause is correspondingly clear, evidence of insurance, or lodged security, is provided, or the contractor provide written cause explaining why the principal should not exercise a cl 44 right when that step has not been taken. Other forms of substantial breach, such as failing to comply with a direction of the superintendant or failing to use, or provide, the standard of materials or workmanship required may also relate to a single event, but they may be ongoing circumstances. Where ongoing circumstances found a substantial breach, and that will usually be the case where the breach concerns failing to proceed expeditiously with the contract, the contractor's reasonable cause shown may concern continuing processes rather that rectification of an existing condition. In the circumstances, it may not be reasonable to expect a contractor to rectify 1000 identified defects within, say, 10 days. It may be reasonable for the contractor, within 10 days, to communicate in writing with the principal about how its systems, processes, or resources on the project are appropriate to rectify the substantial breach identified and ensure future compliance with the contract, according to its terms.

397 In White Industries, the proprietor contended that regard could be had to the communications that had preceded the notice from which the necessary detail of the proprietor's complaints emerged. Byrne J noted that the notice did not reference any document that might have provided the detail ignored by the notice. Here, the drafter of the notice has sought directly to provide details of the substantial breach by specific reference to other documents. It is not a requirement for validity that the notice be completely accurate in every particular. What is required is to convey what is amiss for the purposes of showing cause. While it might be prudent to annex or otherwise provide copies of documents that provide the particulars of the substantial breach, in my view incorporation of documents, properly identified by reference in the notice, is sufficient to unequivocally convey what the principal considers to be amiss and provide the opportunity intended by the contract for the contractor to show cause.

398 I dealt earlier with the debate during the course of the trial as to whether the reference documents were served with the notices. It is of no consequence for a further reason. I am satisfied that the referenced documents are communications of a kind required or authorised by the terms of the contract, e.g. cl 56, or of a kind commonly exchanged in commercial projects of this sort. It is both reasonable, and acceptable, for Hue to expect that Dura would have ready access to the referenced documents or, if it did not, that it would request copies. There is no reason to suppose that the parties to a contract of this magnitude are not maintaining proper record keeping systems, permitting ready access to referenced documents. As events transpired, Dura made no request before, or after, preparing its response showing cause to the notices. Mr Maaser gave evidence that he assisted in the process of collating all the documents needed for Dura to respond to the notices, showing cause.

399 The substantial breach that concerned Hue when it served the direction notice was more than a single instance of a failure to comply with a superintendent's direction or a single defect. The relations between the parties had then progressed beyond a request for a response to single events. Although that proof of a single instance of failing to comply with a direction may be sufficient proof of substantial breach, that proof merely enlivens the entitlement under cl 44.2 to give a written notice. The same can be said of a single instance of failing to use, or provide, the standard of materials or workmanship required. What the contractor must then do, to show reasonable cause in such circumstances, will be directed to rectifying an existing condition or complying with a direction. The directions and defects notices unequivocally conveyed to Dura that what was amiss was its performance of the contract, evident in multiple instances of outstanding directions and of defects. The matters being identified as the substantial breaches were continuing processes as much as existing conditions. Demonstrating reasonable cause for Hue not exercising a right under cl 44.4 needed to address not just rectification but also Dura's manner of performance of the contract in respect of directions and standards.

400 For these reasons, I reject Dura's submission that the notices were objectionable as ambiguous, confusing, prolix and obtuse and failed to specify with sufficient particularity the directions or alleged items of defective workmanship to identify the substantial breach. Dura's contention that each specific respect in which it failed to comply with a superintendent's direction or failed to use the standard of materials or provide the standards of workmanship required by the contract, in breach of cl 30.1 was not exactly articulated in each notice respectively, puts too highly the requirement, under cl 44.3(b), that the notice specify the alleged substantial breach.

401 Dura goes further. It contends that in order to be unambiguous, a show cause notice should also state which of the remedies the principal intends to exercise. I consider that this submission goes too far. No authority was cited to me. Dura referred to a statement in Building and Construction Contracts in Australia[54] where the authors observe:

The principal ought to specify in the notice pursuant to clause 44.3 just which of the remedies in clause 44.4 it proposes to exercise in the event that cause is not shown so that the contractor is made fully aware of the specific consequences of not showing reasonable cause.

402 This position is misconceived. The contract permits the principal to determine its response after affording an opportunity to the contractor to show reasonable cause. That decision may be influenced by the contractor's response. It is not a situation where the contractor is left to guess which remedy will be exercised, the contractor must show cause as to why either right should not be exercised. In any event, the contractor is fully aware of the specific consequences of not showing reasonable cause as cl 44.4 makes it clear that the principal may elect for one or other of the rights set out in that clause.

403 Dura also contends that having regard to the vast number of issues which required Dura's response, the time for cause to be shown was too short and unreasonably so. This submission misconceived the task of showing cause. It is not to the point that the task of co-ordinating the trades to attend site and rectify defects might not reasonably have been achieved in seven clear days. That seemed to be the basis of its complaint, as explained at trial. Dura had weeks or, in some cases, months to comply with directions or deal with defects, prior to service of the notices. Further, to the extent that the task required Dura to communicate that it had already complied with a direction or completed rectification of a list of defects, or even negotiated with Hue's consultants an alternative solution to the consequences of an earlier breach, such as incorrect set out, -

(a) Dura made its response by the time permitted by the second set of notices, viz. 19 September 2006;

(b) the effective period for showing cause became 15 days. I am satisfied that notwithstanding the objection taken to the short period permitted by the first set of notices for a response, Dura anticipated that the period could be extended to resolve that objection and commenced preparing its response from the time of service of the first set of notices;

(c) Dura did not seek any extension of time to show cause or renew its objection that the period of time for its response was too short after the notices were re-served; and

(d) Dura, when instituting this proceeding and seeking interim injunctive relief, did not instruct its legal advisers that the period allowed for it to show cause was unreasonably short. It proceeded with its case for more than 4½ years on the first set of notices only that, on their face, allowed an unreasonably short time for a response. It is common ground that Hue did not respond to cause shown until the second set of notices expired.

While the point may have appealed to Dura's legal advisers at trial, it did not appeal to Dura during 2006 and if there was in fact a valid procedural objection based in the reasonableness of the period allowed, which I do not accept, Dura plainly, by its conduct, waived it. I think it likely that, had a timely objection been made, after re-service, to the reasonableness of the period allowed, or further time sought by Dura to respond, Hue would likely have granted some further time and avoided exposure to a technical or procedural point in determining what course to take.

404 A further matter arose in relation to the directions notice. Were all of the directions lawfully given? Clause 23(b) requires the contractor to comply with a direction where the contract enables the superintendent to give directions. Clause 30.3 of the contract provides that the superintendent, if he discovers non-compliant work or materials, may give the contractor a direction to remove material from site, demolish work, or reconstruct, replace or correct the material or work. The relevant enabling provision for the directions is thus cl 30.3. The directions identified by the notice comprise communications from both Mr Pozzebon and Mr Chan and Dura's contentions in this respect turn on the timing of directions in relation to the replacement of Mr Chan as superintendent by Mr Pozzebon on 12 July 2006. From late March 2006, Mr Pozzebon was the superintendent's representative. Clause 24 permits the appointment by the superintendent of a representative to exercise any function of the superintendent and requires the superintendent to notify the contractor of the appointment of a representative and of the function delegated.

405 Dura submitted that Hue, not Mr Chan, appointed Mr Pozzebon as superintendent's representative and, further, that the function of giving directions under cl 30.3 was not delegated to him. Thus, Mr Pozzebon's directions prior to 12 July 2006, and Mr Chan's directions after that date were not valid. Valid delegation of functions by the superintendent to a representative is not preconditioned by notice to the contractor. The delegation is a matter between the superintendent and the representative. The contract merely provides that the superintendent forthwith notify the contractor.

406 To resolve this issue I need say a little more about Mr Pozzebon's appointment as superintendent's representative. In the period, December 2005 to March 2006, Mr Chan as superintendent reported to Mr Chu problems with the quality of Dura's work and Dura's lack of compliance with the contract drawings and specifications, his directions, and its lack of progress generally. Dura had by then, submitted many extension of time and variation claims. Hue disputed several claims. I have noted that there was a turning point reached in relations between the parties in March 2006 and Hue was entertaining serious, and grounded, concerns that Dura's contractual performance might not be satisfactory. Mr Chu was sufficiently concerned to write directly to Mr Khor on 20 March 2006 explaining that he was then considering the appointment of a superintendent's representative.

407 During March 2006, Mr Chu agreed terms of engagement with Charter Keck Cramer. The superintendent, Mr Chan, formally notified Dura on 29 March 2006 of the appointment of Mr Pozzebon as superintendent's representative. The notification was by a superintendent's instruction, and although allocated the identifier AI 179, as was Mr Chan's practice, the document confirms that Mr Chan has appointed Mr Pozzebon as superintendent's representative. Although Mr Chan did not notify Dura of the delegated functions, he provided Dura with a copy of correspondence between Mr Pozzebon and Mr Chu, which reveals the scope of Mr Pozzebon's retainer. That document made clear that Mr Pozzebon was assuming a broad range of contract administration functions including progressive work inspections, review, and approval of the contractor's work methods, quality systems and reporting on conformity to specification requirements. That Mr Chan provided a copy of this proposal to Dura leads to the inference that he was delegating to Mr Pozzebon such of his functions as were encompassed by the proposal. Although Mr Chan refers to the appointment as having been made by Hue, that must be taken as a reference to Mr Pozzebon's retainer as a consultant by Hue to perform the role of representative, and does not mean that the superintendent's instruction lacks force as an appointment of a representative by the superintendent.

408 By fax the following day, Mr Hendricks sought clarification about which functions specifically Mr Chan had delegated to the representative. He did not question the appointment itself. Mr Chan issued another superintendent's instruction (AI 183) that stated that the superintendant would retain the role of coordination and clarification of design documents and the superintendent's representative would undertake all reviews and decisions regarding programming, cost, time implications, and progress claims. Reading AI 183 in context, I am satisfied that the delegated authority to Mr Pozzebon included giving directions under cl 30, and that notice of the delegated function, although not in the clearest of terms, was conveyed by Mr Chan's statement of the functions of superintendent that he retained. When, only 10 days later Mr Pozzebon issued the first direction under cl 30.3, Mr Hendricks did not question Mr Pozzebon's authority. He plainly accepted it as a valid cl 30.3 direction and asked Mr Maaser to deal with it.

409 I do not accept Dura's contention that Mr Pozzebon's functions were limited, with no authority regarding defects. That is an unduly narrow construction of the correspondence. I am satisfied that he was properly appointed and authorised to give valid directions on behalf of the superintendent regarding defects.

410 As part of its general submissions, Dura contended that the defects notice and the directions notice are confusing, prolix, and oppressive and are therefore invalid. I have largely dealt with this submission. How the submission, particularly of oppression, was put as a general invalidating proposition was not clear. It is an issue that must be dealt with for each particular notice.

411 For these reasons I reject these grounds for Dura's contentions that the notices to show cause served on 11 September 2006 were invalid.

Did Hue act unreasonably in giving the defects and directions notices?

412 This issue must commence with an analysis of whether any obligation to act reasonably is an implied term of the contract and, if so, what is the precise extent of its operation. The obligation is said to arise in two contexts. Dura contends Hue must act reasonably in serving the notices and later when assessing whether Dura has shown cause.

413 Dura submitted, relying on Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Limited v Minister for Public Works[55] and Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v Southern Pacific Petroleum NL (rec & man apptd)[56] that there is implied into the contract a term that the principal would at all material times act reasonably in serving a notice under cl 44.2 of the contract. It contended Hue breached the implied term in the ways that I have already set out and in consequence, the notices were invalid. Dura contends the terms is implied either at law or to give business efficacy to the contract.

414 Hue contended, correctly, that the law of the contract is the law of Victoria[57] and, relying on Esso Australia Resources,[58] that in Victoria, no general obligation of good faith is implied into commercial contracts as a matter of law. Reasonableness is equated with good faith in this context. Further, there is no need to imply such a term into this contract in order to give business efficacy. Finally, in serving the notices and assessing Dura's responses, Hue acted reasonably and in accordance with the contract.

415 In The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia,[59] the learned authors, having surveyed what they describe as a vast academic discussion, what one judge described as 'a bewildering variety of opinions in the authorities and commentaries as to the implication of terms as to reasonableness and good faith in commercial contacts'[60] ventured the following statement:

A commercial contract may include an implied term of good faith requiring the parties to co-operate in providing one another the benefit of the contract, imposing standards of honesty and fair dealing, and preventing the parties from exercising powers under the contract capriciously or for purposes at odds with the object of the contract.

416 In Esso Australia Resources[61] the trial judge did not expressly decide whether a duty of good faith was to be implied into a joint venture agreement, finding that, in the event, there was no want of good faith. On appeal, Buchanan JA[62] stated:

I am reluctant to conclude that commercial contracts are a class of contracts carrying an implied term of good faith as a legal incident,[63] so that an obligation of good faith applies indiscriminately to all the rights and power conferred by a commercial contract. It may, however, be appropriate in a particular case to import such an obligation to protect a vulnerable party from exploitive conduct which subverts the original purpose for which the contract was made. Implication in this fashion is perhaps ad hoc implication, meeting the tests laid down in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty. Ltd. v. Shire of Hastings,[64] rather than implication as a matter of law creating a legal incident of contracts of a certain type.

Ultimately, the interests of certainty in contractual activity should be interfered with only when the relationship between the parties is unbalanced and one party is at a substantial disadvantage, or is particularly vulnerable in the prevailing context. Where commercial leviathans are contractually engaged, it is difficult to see that a duty of good faith will arise, leaving aside duties that might arise in a fiduciary relationship. If one party to a contract is more shrewd, more cunning and out-manoeuvres the other contracting party who did not suffer a disadvantage and who was not vulnerable, it is difficult to see why the latter should have greater protection than that provided by the law of contract.

417 Substantially the same concept has been expressed by describing the obligation of good faith in negative terms, that is, as a prohibition upon the parties acting in bad faith. Finkelstein J observed in Pacific Brands Sports & Leisure Pty Ltd v Underworks Pty Ltd:[66]

I appreciate that the standard of conduct imposed by a covenant of good faith is incapable of precise definition. That does not produce an unworkable obligation ... [A] good starting point in any particular enquiry is to see whether the impugned conduct ... was motivated by bad faith, or was for an ulterior motive or, if it be any different, whether the defendant acted arbitrarily or capriciously. It may also be proper to investigate whether the impugned act was oppressive or unfair in its result. If any of these things can be established then, in all probability, the obligation will be breached ...

418 An alternative starting point will be a careful examination of the relevant terms of the contract. In Tote Tasmania Pty Ltd & Anor v Garrott & Anor,[67] the Tasmanian Full Court was invited to consider whether an obligation to act in good faith was implied from a party to a licence sale agreement in determining whether a condition precedent had been satisfied. In a joint judgment, the court[68] rejected the proposition that an implied term of good faith is a necessary legal incident for commercial contracts. The court considered that an obligation of good faith does not apply indiscriminately to all the rights and powers conferred by a commercial contact and whether a term requiring the exercise of good faith is to be implied depends upon the principles of ad hoc implication. The court continued:

Whether a power conferred upon a party to a contract is fettered by a duty of good faith depends upon the terms in which the power is expressed. Without purporting to compile an exhaustive list, there are at least three types of contractual powers which suggest different results. One is a provision conferring a power in an agreement, such as a partnership agreement, which is concerned with co-operation between the parties to produce a result which benefits all the parties to the contract. In such an agreement, a court might readily imply an obligation to act in good faith in that the party upon whom the power is conferred must have regard to the interest of all the parties to the agreement. Another type of provision is one which confers a power if the donee of the power considers that a certain state of affairs or condition exists. In this case, a court may well hold that the power can only be exercised by an honest decision that the state of affairs or condition does exist, but the honest exercise of the power will not be reviewed by the court. Yet another type of provision is one conferring a power that is quite unqualified. Here, a court may conclude that the power can legitimately be exercised in the interests of the party upon whom it is conferred and that party is to be the sole judge of where its interests lie and may exercise the power for any reason it sees fit. [Citations omitted][69]

419 In Esso Petroleum Resources in the context of examining whether any such obligation, if implied, may have been breached, Buchanan JA observed:[70]

The content of an implied contractual duty of good faith has been variously described. In Renard, Priestley JA equated good faith with reasonableness. In Garry Rogers, Finkelstein, J said that an obligation of good faith required a party "not to act capriciously". Breach of the obligation has been described as seeking to prevent the performance of the contract or withholding its benefits and as seeking to further an ulterior purpose or purpose extraneous to that for which a right or power is conferred. [Citations omitted]

420 Hue's submission that no general obligation of good faith is implied in commercial contracts as a matter of law is, accordingly, correct. To establish its implied term, Dura must rely upon the principles of ad hoc implication.

421 In my opinion, it is unnecessary to imply the term contended for to give business efficacy to the contract. Dura did not contend, nor is it the fact, that the relationship between Dura and Hue, whether when the contract was formed, in September 2006, or at any other time was unbalanced, or that Dura was at a substantial disadvantage or particularly vulnerable in the circumstances that prevailed. There is no basis in the evidence to make any findings of that sort. Likewise it was not, and could not, be said that Dura was a vulnerable party which might be protected from express conduct by Hue which subverted the original purpose for which the contract was made by importing an obligation to act reasonably in giving a notice under cl 44.2. In the context of the categories identified in Tote Tasmania, the power to give a cl 44.2 notice to show cause falls within the second identified category. Hue was required to determine, honestly, whether the contractor had committed a substantial breach of contract. I stated earlier I am satisfied that Hue made an honest decision in good faith to that effect and that decision cannot be set aside because a court might think it unreasonable or one which served only the interests of Hue. I went further, stating that I am in any event satisfied that Hue acted reasonably in exercising the power to serve the notices to show cause.

422 The second occasion for ad hoc implication of a requirement of reasonableness arises when a principal considers the contractor's response to the notice. Clause 44.4, although a provision which also falls within the second category identified in Tote Tasmania, expressly introduces the concept of reasonableness - the principal may only exercise a cl 44.4 right if the contractor fails to show reasonable cause. The qualification of reasonableness operates for the benefit of the principal qualifying the nature of cause shown that it must consider. But so long as Hue made an honest determination that Dura had failed to show reasonable cause that decision too could not be set aside because a court might think Hue's determination unreasonable or one that served only the interests of Hue. There is no basis in the evidence to make any findings of disadvantage or vulnerability on Dura's part, or improper purpose on Hue's part, such as might warrant importing an obligation to act reasonably when determining to exercise a right under cl 44.4 of the contract. I will return to the question of reasonableness in the review of Dura's cause shown in due course after setting out what occurred in that respect.

Dura's contentions about the expedition notice

423 Dura contended, rightly, that Hue bore the onus of proving breach of the cl 33.1 obligation. First, Dura submitted that the notice did not specify the alleged substantial breach. I have already dealt with that issue. Dura characterised Hue's approach to the question of delay as treating the date for practical completion as determinative of the question. That is, Hue tied the obligation created by cl 33.1 with the related, but quite distinct, obligation found in cl 35.2, namely to complete the works by the date for practical completion. Dura did not deny that it delayed the project, or that the date for practical completion was relevant, but it contended that t he question was whether at the time that expedition notice issued, was Dura in breach of the obligation to proceed with due expedition and without delay. Dura contended that it established in evidence that events for which Dura was not responsible caused delays and Hue failed to establish that there was no delay, other than delay caused by Dura.

424 Dura submits that Hue wrongly attempts to shift the onus of proof by asserting that because Dura did not formally claim extensions of time and pursue such claims as part of its positive case, then these matters must be disregarded. Thus, Hue's claim that the adjusted date for practical completion remains 18 October 2006 is an incorrect premise for the notice. Next Dura contended that the notice confused the recipient by its references to construction programming and the date for practical completion, matters that did not assist in identifying how Dura was in default. For the reasons that follow, those contentions fail.

Progress and programming of the works - legal requirements for an expedition notice

425 The focus of cl 33, the terms of which are set out above, is not the completion date but rather the rate of progress, the stages in which the works may be performed and on construction programming.

426 The central obligation on the contractor is to proceed with the works with 'due expedition and without delay'. The meaning of this obligation and the circumstances that will sufficiently demonstrate a substantial breach of the obligation require careful consideration. The phrase 'due expedition and without delay' is uncertain in its precise meaning. The ordinary meaning of due expedition, as revealed by the Macquarie Dictionary, requires, affirmatively, adequate or sufficient promptness or speed in accomplishing something. The phrase cannot be construed in the abstract and obviously depends on what is to be achieved,[71] namely, progress with the works. The second limb of the phrase addressed the negative in plain language - the progress of the works should also be characterised as being without delay. In context, the obligation qualifies how the contractor 'proceeds with the work under the contract'. What is adequate or sufficient will be conditioned by other terms of the bargain such as the agreed date for practical completion, the agreed circumstances when, and procedure for, the date for practical completion being varied and how the works are to be staged or programmed. Such references, extraneous to the phrase, introduce uncertainty in its precise meaning as they, in turn, may depend on the interpretation of circumstances or events that have occurred in the performance of the contract. Careful consideration of the contractual context is required.

427 The cases confirm the approach suggested by the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used, although in the cases the contractual language creating like obligations does vary.[72] In Hounslow London Borough Council v Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd[73] Megarry J considered a requirement that a building contractor 'proceed regularly and diligently with the works' concluding:

... The words convey a sense of activity, of orderly progress, and of industry and perseverance ... I remain somewhat uncertain as to the concept enshrined in these words; and this necessarily increases the task of Mr Harman in establishing a strong case that the contractor has failed to proceed regularly and diligently with the works, so that the architect's notice is good.

428 Brown LJ construed the like phrase - regularly and diligently - in West Faulkner v London Borough of Newham[74] to mean 'to proceed continuously, industriously and efficiently with appropriate physical resources so as to progress the works steadily towards completion substantially in accordance with the contractual requirement as to time'. Dura submitted I should ascribe a similar meaning to the terms of cl 33.1. I do not agree. While there are conceptual similarities between 'proceed regularly and diligently' and 'proceed with due expedition and without delay', the phrases do not mean the same thing.

429 In Re Stewardson Stubbs & Collett Pty Ltd & Bankstown Municipal Council,[75] Moffitt J observed that:

... [T]he question of what precisely constitutes a failure to proceed with reasonable diligence is a matter of some difficulty. However, it is an allegation of a general failure to proceed with that degree of promptness and efficiency that one would expect of a reasonable builder who has undertaken a building project in accordance with the terms of the contract in question.

430 Moffat J rightly emphasises the significance of the terms of the bargain between the parties and uses language consistent with the ordinary meaning of due expedition, but the definition propounded is unhelpfully imprecise. In a like context, McGarvie J, in Matthews v Brodie[76] rejected a submission that 'reasonable diligence' included failing to proceed in a competent manner, preferring to construe the relevant clause as limited to failing to proceed with reasonable application and expedition. Whether there had been such a failure was a question of fact.

431 In Greater London Council v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd,[77] Staughton J was called upon to interpret a contract that specified key completion dates, but without an express obligation on the contractor to act with due diligence. However, the contract permitted the proprietor to terminate if the contractor neglected to execute the works with due diligence, after giving notice of its intention to do so. Staughton J held that there was no implied term of due diligence, although his Honour suggested that if there was a term of due diligence, then it must be interpreted in the light of other obligations as to time in the contract. Staughton J interpreted the obligation on the contractor to be to execute the works 'with such diligence and expedition as were reasonably required in order to meet the key dates and completion dates in the contract'.[78]

432 The personal circumstances of the contractor do not condition this obligation. It is an objective standard. If, for example, economic conditions caused a shortage of plasterers in Melbourne, and the contractor duly engaged such plasterers as were available but delay in plasterwork increasingly delayed the progress of the works, the risk of loss that may flow lies with the contractor. That is so because other terms of the contract allocate risk for time cost events. Thus, in Hooker Constructions Pty Ltd v Chris's Engineering Contracting Co,[79] when construing a 'diligence' concept, Blackburn J observed that the 'onus is on the plaintiff to show the [subcontractor] was in default'. For Blackburn J 'a sensible construction of the phrase is that the actual extent of work completed is of some significance' and that 'diligence' in the contract means '... not only the personal industriousness of the defendant, but his efficacy and that of all who worked for him'. Blackburn J considered as acceptable evidence of a want of reasonable diligence, 'evidence that the work was, at the material time, seriously incomplete together with evidence that there were no circumstances preventing the defendant from overcoming this situation'. Hooker led such evidence and although the defendant adduced evidence to show that 'through no fault of his own, he was unable to get the necessary material to bring the work to the stage where it should have been at the material time', Blackburn J found the plaintiff had validly terminated the contract.

433 In Australian Development Corporation Pty Ltd v White Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd[80] Giles J accepted that:

where there was a specified future date for practical completion, whether [the builder] was prosecuting the project diligently was a question of fact, substantially determined by whether it was proceeding at a rate of progress according to which practical completion would be achieved by the specified date but with regard also to whether accelerative measures could bring achievement of completion by the specified date.

His Honour considered competing expert evidence about the time required to complete the building work, but concluded it was unnecessary in the circumstances of that case to resolve the difference between those views.

434 In Hometeam Constructions Pty Ltd v McCauley,[81] Hometeam agreed with McCauley to build a house using the foundations and existing walls of a house damaged by fire. In this way, the project was for additions and alterations to an existing house and not a new house. The agreed date for practical completion was May 2000. During the works, engineers condemned the existing foundations as structurally inadequate, requiring them to be demolished and rebuilt (the 'foundation work') causing the completion of the work to be delayed. About six months after the commencement of the works McCauley began complaining about slow progress and on 14 July 2000, served a notice of default on Hometeam asserting it had failed to proceed with the building works 'regularly and with due diligence and without delay'. McCauley terminated the contract because the appellant had 'failed to remedy the default' specified in the notice of default. He succeeded at trial. On appeal, Hometeam contended that the substantial reason the works extended beyond the time for practical completion was the extent of the foundation work and that when proper regard was had to the stages the works reached at various times, the trial judge had erroneously concluded it had failed to perform the contract with due diligence.

435 The Court of Appeal[82] accepted that the question whether the works were proceeding with due diligence as at 14 July 2000 required an examination of the entire history of the works, which were relevant both to the question whether, at the time the notice was served, Hometeam was in substantial breach of the contract and the validity of McCauley's notice.[83] McCauley's entitlement to issue the notice depended on whether as at 14 July 2000, two conditions could be established: had Hometown failed to perform the works 'regularly and with due diligence and without delay' and if so, was the extent of its failure such as to constitute a 'substantial breach' of the contract.[84]

436 The Court of Appeal accepted that the Hometown's failure to complete the work by the date for practical completion was some evidence of delay,[85] but whether delay is of itself sufficient to raise an inference of lack of due diligence must depend on the circumstances. McCauley bore the onus of proving Hometown's substantial breach of the contract as at 14 July 2000,[86] but proof of facts giving rise to an inference of lack of due diligence, if 'sufficient ... to turn the scale'[87] may discharge an evidentiary onus and pass to Hometown an onus to explain why the work progressed at that rate.

437 McColl JA identified[88] two approaches McCauley could have used to show that Hometown had failed to perform the works with due diligence. One approach was to prove the following matters. As Hometown's work under the contract, as events transpired, included original works and foundation rectification, what, in addition to the contract period for the original works, was a reasonable time within which Hometown ought to have executed all the required work? Had Hometown failed to execute the work within that reasonable time? To the extent Hometown proffered explanations of why the work had not been executed within that reasonable time, were those explanations acceptable? Alternatively, McColl JA suggested[89] McCauley might prove lack of due diligence by establishing a case of delay in progress during construction. The proprietor could establish a failure to carry out a reasonable task load in a period measured by reference to all the work to be performed under the contract, or conversely, establish a lack of activity on site over a significant period that could not be satisfactorily explained.

438 Hometown had not made a formal claim for an extension of time for the foundation work. Thus it was in breach of contract when, by the date for practical completion, the works were unfinished. However, McColl JA did not consider that administrative neglect in failing to make proper claim for extension of time cannot determine whether Hometown was actually performing the work with due diligence.

439 Once it was accepted that the foundation work constituted an agreed variation (and founded an entitlement to an extension of time), whether Hometown performed the works with due diligence had to take into account the period reasonably to be allowed for the foundation work. McColl JA concluded[90] that to establish that the contract works had not been performed with due diligence, it was incumbent on McCauley to call evidence, as in Hooker, that established that:

(a) at the time the notice of default was served, the works were seriously incomplete; and,

(b) there were no circumstances preventing the appellant from having performed the works at a more rapid rate.

Hometown was not responsible for the delay occasioned by the engineers' condemnation of the foundations and walls. In that context,[91] her Honour suggests[92] it was incumbent on McCauley to show there were no circumstances that reasonably could have prevented Hometown from having performed better.

440 In establishing whether there is, for the purposes of cl 44.2 a substantial breach of cl 33.1 of the contract by not proceeding with the works with due expedition and without delay, I consider the following two-stage approach to be appropriate in the circumstances of cl 33 of AS 2124-1992. First, has a failure to proceed with the work with due expedition and without delay been shown? and, if so, second, does it constitute a substantial breach? Hue carries the burden of proof in the sense I have discussed of showing that Dura is not proceeding with adequate or sufficient promptness and without delay.

441 At the first stage inquiry, the essential requirement of cl 33.1 is directed to considering the manner in which the contractor 'is proceeding' with the works. The terms of the bargain, particularly those that relate to how the contractor is to proceed, condition the precise content of the obligation. It is necessary to have regard to the whole history of the project and to all relevant terms of the contract. A particularly important consideration is that the contractor has agreed, by cl 33.2 to execute the works to an approved construction program to achieve the agreed date for practical completion. Other terms of the contract allocate the risk of time costs from defined events between the contracting parties.

442 An inability to achieve the date for practical completion or a failure to formally apply to extend the date for practical completion under the contract are not, of themselves, determinative of a want of due expedition and absence of delay in the procession of the works, but are matters to take into consideration in their contractual context. That context may arise where the proprietor's evidence has cast the onus onto the contractor to explain away the reasonable inference of a want of due expedition and of delay. That is because the inquiry is relative to a period in the term of the project, but not the whole term. The relevant period is established by the terms of the notice to show cause and will ordinarily be a period commencing prior to and ending on the date of the notice. As McColl JA recognised in Hometeam, establishing delay in progress during construction can be achieved on proof of a failure to carry out a reasonable task load in a period of time, measured by reference to all the work to be performed under the contract. Conversely, establishing a lack of activity on site over a significant period that is not satisfactorily explained may be sufficient to show that the contractor is not proceeding with due expedition and without delay.

443 Clause 44.2, which defines 'substantial breach' to include breach of cl 33.1, in part answers the second stage inquiry, but that characterisation refers more to the nature, than the extent, of the breach. In extent, the breach must be substantial. 'Substantial' requires that the breach be material or important. In Hometown, McCauley had not allowed, formally as an extension of time, the period reasonably taken for the rectification work. She had to demonstrate that there were no circumstances reasonably preventing Hometown from having performed better. However, the requirement for substantial breach cannot helpfully be characterised in this way in the context of AS 2124-1992.

444 All that Hue must establish is that the breach is substantial, a question of fact that involves objective considerations like those identified as applying in the first stage inquiry. It is not enough for a contractor to show that the circumstances that caused the want of due expedition or delay were beyond his control. The contractor must also show that the risk of that outcome does not lie at its feet under the contract. In this sense, other aspects of the contract may become relevant. The requirements of cl 33.2 are particularly significant and distinguish the circumstances of Hometown from those of Dura. The contractor is required to execute the works according to the latest approved program. The construction program must show the sequence of activities on the critical path. Failure to have an approved program is not, per se, proof of a want of due expedition. The focus is on the construction activities at a relevant time. A construction activity that is not on the critical path and is not proceeding with due expedition, delayed by the contractor, may not constitute a substantial breach of cl 33.1. Even an assumed extended period of delay may not be material or important. Conversely, if such activity is on the critical path, a short delay, or want of due expedition may result in important time consequences and be a substantial breach. Thus, if the works are not progressing with due expedition and without delay because the critical path is extending in circumstances where the reasons for the want of due expedition lie contractually at the risk of the contractor, the breach will be substantial. In context, the obvious example is where the critical path is extending because the contractor has become obliged, whether for want of adequate quality control or proper on-site supervision of the work of trades, to undertake significant rectification of defective or non-compliant work the contractor's inability to proceed with due expedition and without delay will be, prima facie, a substantial breach.

445 Where the contractor is entitled to extensions of time, unclaimed or inappropriately rejected by the superintendent, a further consideration may arise. Such circumstance may explain an inference arising from the contractor's inability to meet the date for practical completion as administrative and not determinative of the progress of the works. The proper inference depends on the circumstances of the contractor's claimed entitlement. The present relevance of the issue is its effect on the burden of proof. Does the principal have to disprove that such entitlement exists to establish the contractors default by a want of due expedition? I do not think that it does. In each situation, other provisions of the contract are relevant. Where a contractor wishes to claim an EOT, under cl 35.5 the contractor must give written notice to the superintendent within 10 days after the cause of the delay arises. Likewise, the contractor may dispute[93] the rejection of an EOT claim by the superintendent. If a rejection of an EOT claim is apparently accepted by the contractor, the EOT claim is not a matter that the principal need take into account in determining for the purposes of cl 44.2 whether there has been default by the contractor. The obligation on the contractor, under cl 33.2(f) to construct to the latest approved program, primarily defines how the works must proceed. Due to the relevance of critical path analysis for assessment of responsibility for delay events, there is good reason for the time limits agreed for such claims. An obligation to take into account EOT entitlements of this character is not contractually imposed on the principal at the cl 44.2 stage. Such considerations may surface later, at the cl 44.4 stage, when the principal is considering whether the contractor has failed to show reasonable cause why it should not exercise a right under cl 44.4. Whether unclaimed or disallowed EOT claims then become relevant depends on the manner in which the contractor shows cause to the cl 44.2 notice.[94]

446 As part of the preparation for, and presentation of, the evidence at trial, the parties tendered a Scott Schedule (No. 1), that identified the sources of the evidence in relation to the defects alleged to exist prior to Dura leaving the site on 23 October 2006. This is an extensive document with cross references to many other evidentiary sources and I have given it, and the cross references, careful consideration. To explain my reasoning on the questions of whether there was substantial breach permitting service of the notices, it is sufficient that I provide of the examples from the evidence.

447 I have already referred to cl 44.2, which states what the term 'substantial breach' includes. In Mazelow Pty Ltd v Herberton Shire Council[95] the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the term, in the context of cl 44 of AS 2124-1992. MacPherson JA, with the other members of the court concurring, observed that:

The expression "substantial breach" is widely and not exhaustively defined. By cl. 44.7, it includes various acts or omissions some of which might in some circumstances amount to repudiatory conduct by the Principal. However, none of those defined acts or omissions extends to a final and definitive refusal to perform the contract any further.

In context, the court was distinguishing substantial breach from a breach that would justify a common law determination. The requirement of a substantial breach is not that high and, when read with cl 44.1, shows that the parties have agreed that the contractual right to terminate has expanded the common law rights that otherwise may be available. In each case there is no question that the nature of the breach can be substantial, having regard to the express provisions of cl 44.2. As regards the place that the conduct in breach must reach on the continuum from trivial to repudiatory, the adjective 'substantial', provides guidance. It requires that the conduct in breach be of real or actual significance with respect to the important qualities of the bargain. Trivial or inconsequential conduct will not suffice, but it is unnecessary to show conduct that 'goes to the root of the contract'. The consequences of the conduct must be material, or important, to the substance of the contract.

Was there substantial breach - the directions notice?

448 Hue identified 49 directions with which, it contended, Dura did not comply. Hue need not prove every particularised instance, proof that there was a failure to comply with a valid direction amounting to substantial breach is sufficient. This assessment does not require that I form a view about whether every alleged defect the subject of a direction existed or whether in every case a defect was not rectified. In many instances, the direction sought specific action from Dura, either by rectification of defects, or by a request that Dura communicate what process it proposed to adopt in response to a direction. The directions and the responses that concerned defect rectification focussed on the twin issues of Hue's concerns - absence of any effective quality control and poor communication. In some instances Dura responded, often late after a site meeting when Hue raised the issue. On other occasions, Dura ignored the superintendent - Dura may have attended to some, but not all, of the identified defects at some point after a direction but left Hue or its consultants to discover that fact for themselves. A common response was to pass on to the relevant subcontractor, the communication that Dura had received, but itself taking no further action to follow up with the subcontractor, or communicate to the superintendent, the subcontractor's response.

449 The directions commonly required Dura to submit a plan for the rectification of the identified defects and to complete the rectification within 14 days. Dura never responded in terms to such directions, as I have already noted. Dura did not comply with the direction for defects list 1. An item in defects list 1 was the incorrect set out of the windows at levels 2 and 3 on the east elevation. The direction required Dura to rectify this defect within 14 days. Dura did not rectify the defect within 14 days. Rather, as I have already noted, a design modification was required and, when Dura fitted the smaller window, it left damaged render that was not repaired. This response was not compliance with the direction given.

450 Another item from defects list 1 was incorrect set out of wet area setdowns. This defect, which occurred in a number of units, was first identified during an inspection on 8 March 2006. Dura did not communicate the proposed method of rectification or provide any opportunity to inspect the issue prior to tiling. Mr Maaser suggested that by 19 October 2006, more than six months after defects list 1, Dura had rectified this defect. Dura attempted to fix some of the set-downs with concrete in-fill, but photographs taken in February 2007 show concrete infill breaking away from the slab in unit 19, evidence that the rectification method was unsatisfactory.

451 A further item in defects list 1 required that fire rated plasterboard run all the way to the slab, with a fire rated silicone joint and no gaps. All penetrations through fire rated corridor were to be of fire rated construction. The issue that continued to raise concern was that fire rated plasterboard was in many instances not installed to the manufacturer's requirements. Mr Maaser asserted that by 12 September 2006, Dura had installed fire rated plasterboard to the underside of the slab and sealed penetrations with a fire rated caulking or a vermiculite compound. He drew this assertion from a photo. Mr Pozzebon accepted that the photo showed a properly sealed penetration through fire rated plasterboard, but other photographs, taken after the partial demolition works, showed the same defect, unremediated, in other places, such as units 19 and 23. In relation to the plasterboard installation, I have set out above the findings made by Mr Bonaldi. This was not compliance with the direction.

452 Another subject of directions was proper installation of fire collars with penetrations appropriately backfilled that function properly in a fire. Hydraulic drawing H1 required Dura to install fire collars with penetrations appropriately back-filled with concrete permitting the fire collar to operate correctly. Apparently responding to the direction in defects list 1, on 9 May 2006, Mr Maaser told Dura's electrical subcontractor, LEN Electrical, to caulk penetrations between the party walls. Dura's pre-wall cladding checklist, as at 23 May 2006, identified that fire collars had been fitted to all units up to unit 17 and redundant penetrations in units 1 to 9 had been filled in. LEN certified to Dura, prior to the commencement of wall cladding, that the specified fire rating had been achieved. Dura relied on its electrical subcontractor's certificate. Dura neither checked nor verified this work and did not prove or even identify the LEN certificate. Fire collars are part of the work of the plumbing subcontractor, not an electrical subcontractor, who may complete caulking to fire rate penetrations through walls. Dura did not rectify this issue and did not comply with the direction. Dura provided no evidence that they had addressed the issue with the plumbing contractor. The services engineers, Wood & Grieve, recorded this defect as existing in their first report dated 18 August 2006 and minutes of a meeting held onsite on 5 September 2006 recorded that there was a lack of fire collars in some areas and lack of caulking in some areas. Mr Holman's evidence was that sanitary pipe work was penetrating the slab without proper fire stopping in units 1, 6, 10, 12, 17, 20, and 21. The response to this direction was not satisfactory.

453 Defects list 1 also directed rectification of the recessing of sliding doors to bedrooms and powder rooms. Mr Maaser's evidence was that neither AI 59 nor AI 64 provided suitable recesses, as they did not provide access to fit the doors. A workable detail was resolved on-site by Mr Brunner and Mr Chan involving the use of removable pelmets. The problem was that Dura did not install the specified CS Cavity Sliders, and did not obtain the architect's approval for the cavity sliders that it installed. That unapproved choice by Dura caused the problems with recessing the sliding doors. AIs 59 and 64 were issued in August 2005, but Dura did not identify this problem until it started installing these doors. Then, in March 2006, Dura issued variation quotations and did not recess the sliding doors following defects list 1 and prior to the issue of the show cause notices, claiming the defect was a variation. Dura did not comply with this aspect of the direction relating to defects list 1.

454 Some defects were repeatedly raised and some were ultimately rectified. Defects list 1 included an item that the top surface of the concrete slabs was of poor quality, which, unusually, occurred widely through the site. This complaint was raised at almost every site meeting between April and September. Dura rectified the floor to unit 3 (the prototype unit) prior to September 2006 but had not otherwise rectified this defect prior to the show cause notices being issued. Dura completed the rectification works to the floor of unit 3 prior to 20 September 2006 by applying a finish to the floor. The site meeting minutes for 20 September 2006 record that floor preparation was 'in progress by Dura throughout ground level'. Dura did not rectify the concrete slab on other floors.

455 Defects list 2, as I have noted, concerned structural issues. The direction noted the need for sign off by Maurice Farrugia & Associates. Mr Maaser's evidence was that at a site meeting on 26 July 2006, it was reported that the matters the subject of defects list 2 had been completed by Dura and required assessment. Dura had not detailed a proposed rectification method and timetable or rectified the defects within 7 days as directed. Mr Pozzebon's evidence was that with structural matters, he considered a prompt response was most desirable. The items that were completed took much longer than the specified time. The structural engineer inspected on 1 August 2006 and again on 8 September 2006 to review and report on outstanding structural defects. He reported that Dura had attended to some defects but had covered over the location of nine items with plasterboard prior to his inspection. The materials later submitted to Dura to show cause included a copy of defects list 2 annotated with directions from Dura to its subcontractor, Formpro, to attend to, or complete, each item. AI 442 required a statutory declaration about those nine items. Dura did not produce a statutory declaration. After Dura left site, on 31 October 2006, Maurice Farrugia & Associates again inspected and reported to Mr Pozzebon on 3 November 2006 listing more than 40 outstanding structural defects. Again, the engineer sought a statutory declaration confirming rectification of defects behind plasterboard. Later, after plasterboard was removed, Maurice Farrugia & Associates on 16 February 2007 identified further structural defects only discoverable following removal of plasterboard. This was not satisfactory compliance with the direction.

456 Another direction that I have already discussed was AI 210 that followed an inspection by the building surveyor. I am satisfied that there was not proper or complete compliance with this direction in that Dura's evidence was that, on receipt of the direction, it faxed a copy to its subcontractors LEN Electrical, R & F Plumbing, Tamreb and Troy Merks Plastering. There was no evidence that Dura's subcontractors took any action or that Dura followed up on these faxes. As an example, the direction referred to aspects of installation of fire rated plasterboard as required by manufacturer's specifications. Mr Pozzebon was concerned that there was a lack of supervision by Dura of its subcontractors and a lack of effective quality assurance. His concern was well founded.

457 Another indication that Dura did not comply with the direction relating to defects list 1 was the issue of a revised defects list 1 on 13 June 2006 that included items not attended to. The architect also listed further observed defects. The superintendent's instruction recorded that there had been no response to the direction given two months earlier, and that at site meetings Dura had consistently ignored the defects list. Mr Pozzebon directed that Dura correct the defects within 7 days or respond by detailing against each item the time for and manner of the rectification proposed. Mr Maaser's evidence was that he responded dealing with the issues by fax to Mr Chan on 30 June 2006, which failed to respond to the direction at least to the extent of the timing of the response. The response did provide the itemised response that I have already discussed. I consider that Mr Pozzebon was justified in regarding it as unacceptable.

458 AI 269 concerned the report by MacCormacks of services defects. I have already described the process of giving the instruction. Dura did not respond to the superintendent. It referred the report to its subcontractors. When they responded, Dura replied to Mr Pozzebon. This post-box approach reinforced Hue's perception that Dura did not accept its responsibility to supervise the work of its subcontractors. Dura did not perform any quality assurance role. Further, its response to some items was a bald denial. Mr Pozzebon found that a number of these defects still existed in October 2006. For example, after the works were taken from Dura, the new contractor provided appropriate support to the condenser units on the roof, one of the defects noted.

459 A further example is Dura's response to Mr Pozzebon's letter of 3 July 2006 attaching AI 288 that relates to the incorrect installation of roofing rafters. A typographical error in the subject line, a reference to AI 228, does not disguise the clear reference to AI 288 in the body of the letter. Dura's response avoided the issue that was that Dura had not built in accordance with the contractual drawings. It did not comply with the direction. In its response to the show cause notice, Dura included documentation relevant to AI 228, not AI 288. Dura rectified the roof framing to unit 29 in about mid-September 2006 and the superintendent's representative signed off. Another typographical error example was Mr Pozzebon's direction to Dura to comply with AI 309, which directed Dura to rectify wet area issues, fire stop processes, and plastering and to comply with manufacturer's plasterboard installation specifications. There were two versions of AI 309 issued - one on 13 July 2006 and one on 18 July 2006. Mr Pozzebon's instruction, by letter dated 21 July 2006 refers to 'AI 309 issued by Jackson Clements Burrows Pty Ltd to Dura on 18th July 2006' and relates to defects in plasterboard and the fire stop system. Dura's response to the show cause notice included a copy of AI 309 dated 13 July 2006, material about Dura's response to that (it related to other issues) and a copy of the relevant AI 309 dated 18 July 2006 to which Dura did not provide any response or other materials. The response to the direction was unsatisfactory. Dura attended to some of the plasterboard issues, but not all of them. Numerous defects still existed in the plasterboard at the time the works were taken from Dura, and will be further discussed in due course.

460 Dura acknowledged some directions by stating the matter would be or had been rectified. For example, Dura's response to AI 334 dated 31 July 2006, which concerned the welding of the louvre mullions on level 3, was that completion would occur in the following days as rectification had commenced. Although Mr Pozzebon was not told of that compliance, Mr Brunner's site diaries reveal that the welding of the mullions commenced on 21 July 2006 and was completed by 2 August 2006. Dura complied with that direction. There are other examples that can be given. They are insufficient to found a conclusion that the Dura's response to directions was proper, and if there was breach, it was insubstantial.

461 Another issue was compliance with the manufacturer's specifications for the installation of fire rated plasterboard. Dura passed the superintendent's directions on this topic to its plastering subcontractor, yet as the evidence makes clear, Dura never satisfactorily complied with the superintendent's directions. Plainly, plasterwork was a major issue, being central to the demolition decision in late 2006. I am satisfied that the concerns over plaster work, both in respect of fire proofing and in respect of achieving tolerances in finishes were clearly the subject of directions, that were not substantially complied with.

462 A direction given by letter of 1 September 2006 required Dura to rectify the defects recorded in the Internal Defects report of 31 August 2006. The defects apparently depicted in photos became controversial. Dura had no opportunity to comply with this direction before Hue served the first set of show cause notices. That did not mean that Dura could ignore the notice, only that it need not show cause in relation to it. However, on re-service of the notices on 8 September, Dura's response became relevant. Dura said Dura only received this direction on 5 September 2006. All of the listed defects were allegedly observable on site on 24 August 2006. Dura disputed that the undated photographs were current as at 24 August 2006. Its response was one of denial, noting that the photos were mainly of the corridors of levels 2 and 3 taken when the works were incomplete and that those corridors were now completed. On 8 and 12 September 2006, Mr Alexander 'signed off' on many of the items. On about 18 September 2006 Dura faxed to Mr Pozzebon a 'sign-off' memo by the superintendent's representative of 22 of the 35 identified and Mr Pozzebon responded to Dura's letter the next day acknowledging that 22 of the items had been re-inspected. On 22 September 2006, Dura wrote to Mr Pozzebon notifying that Mr Alexander had reinspected more items and that 'only 11 items are outstanding and work is in progress'. Dura did not suggest in any later communication that the remaining 11 items were rectified. I accept that with this response Dura's compliance with superintendent's directions has belatedly improved, but note that is was during the period of the extant notices to show cause.

463 I have not dealt with all of the directions, but, rather, have used the above examples to illustrate why I have concluded that Dura was in substantial breach of the contract in failing to comply with superintendent's directions when Hue served, and later re-served the notices. In summary, lying at the heart of the issue of non-compliance with directions is Dura's want of a quality control system. Had Dura promptly responded to the early directions by explaining to Hue that it was establishing a quality control system and demonstrating its capacity to meet its contractual obligations under cl 30.2, the superintendent may have been satisfied of compliance with the directions. That response plainly never occurred to Dura.

Was there substantial breach - the defects notice?

464 This issue is somewhat complicated by subsequent developments that I am yet to explain, notably the opening up of the works of Dura after it left the site. In conjunction with the opening up, the underlying works audit report was complied. However, I am satisfied that there were substantial defects in the works on 4 and 11 September 2006 irrespective of the issues that arise from the partial demolition. Dura's experts came on site at a later stage but I have ruled their evidence out as unreliable on this issue. My finding is based on the visual audit report that was completed by Mr Wong and Mr Alexander when Dura left the site, that was substantially confirmed by Mr Maaser and Mr Brunner, who were present at the relevant times and were Dura's principal representatives on site. They were not on site later when other issues arising out of the opening up of the works affected the interpretation of the evidence of observations after the opening up. Mr Maaser and Mr Brunner were each extensively cross-examined about defects.

465 Before turning to the evidence from Messrs Maaser and Brunner, I will refer to the evidence concerning sign-offs by Mr Alexander. Dura strongly submitted that the sign-offs conclusively demonstrated that defects were rectified and that Dura was systematically attending to defect rectification. This occurred relatively late in the sequence of events when, as Dura admits, relations were clearly strained and Hue justifiably had no confidence that Dura had any effective form of quality control. Hue's legitimate concern was that Dura was fast tracking the works, attempting to deal with the issues of delay in progress and defective and non-compliant work by hiding it behind plaster sheeting, with potential issues of safety and non-compliance with the BCA, standards and specifications. Dura considered the allegation false, even unfair. I need not decide whether these allegations are true, but I am satisfied that the perceptions behind these sentiments lay between the parties.

466 On 11 August 2006, Mr Pozzebon advised Dura by letter that he had appointed Liquid Lines as superintendent's representative under cl 24 of the contract from Monday 14 August, to complete an initial quality inspection of the works, from which a construction report would be prepared. Dura's response to the increasing exposure of its poor quality workmanship was to invite sign-off by Mr Alexander. Dura contended that Mr Alexander's role included inspecting the works in order to identify any defective works, to monitor the rectification of defects and to provide sign-offs. I do not accept this submission. His role was much more limited, as explained by Mr Pozzebon and Mr Chu. Because of the tensions now evident between the parties, Dura asserts it decided that it would not apply plasterboard until Ken Alexander had signed off. This response is telling. Dura did not assess its work for the extent of defective and non-compliant work. Dura implemented a process involving Messrs Brunner and Balsden, including Mr Maaser, liaising with Mr Alexander. Mr Brunner prepared sign-off sheets for Mr Alexander on Dura memo sheets, which Mr Alexander signed. Mr Maaser said that Mr Alexander always co-operated and appeared reasonable in providing his sign-offs. I have no reason to doubt Mr Maaser's assessment of the approach taken by Mr Alexander.

467 The sign-off process is, in the result, of limited utility. Before Hue served the defects notice on 11 September 2006, the sign-off forms were limited in their scope. They stand as evidence that there clearly were defects, as identified by the consultants, that Dura needed to rectify. Those defects lists were never comprehensive lists, usually the lists identified examples of defects or non-compliant work that characterised the work of a particular trade. It was Dura's choice to ignore their relevance as indicative of the inadequately supervised work of the trades generally. The inspection, photographing, and sign-off of a particular example of a defect was just that, no more. The contractual obligation under cl 30.1 as to the quality of materials and work always remained on Dura and sign-off on examples is not proof that the works were otherwise of the required contractual standard or an acknowledgement by Hue that it accepted that they were. The later evidence, from experts, from consultants and in the form of the visual inspection report and the underlying works audit demonstrates the limited utility of the sign-off. Further, in many cases, sign-off by Mr Alexander was not sufficient, as the relevant inspection required a suitably qualified consultant. In the result I cannot conclude from the generic character of the sign-offs, prepared by Dura and compliantly completed by Mr Alexander, that the defects that later were identified had been accepted by Hue through this process as contractually compliant work.

468 Dura resisted this proposition by emphasising Mr Alexander's experience in the building industry. However, I do not find Mr Alexander was a thorough and reliable inspector. He worked closely with Mr Balsden, whose job it was to direct Mr Alexander to what he needed to see. I accept that there had been some attention to defects by Dura's subcontractors, that matters such as improved clipping of services, back sealing of penetrations, and the like were observed. At this stage, Dura was motivated by the rancour in relations between the parties to significantly restrict and control Hue's access to the site and the works. I find that Mr Alexander's inspections, and therefore his sign-offs were limited and specific. Because they were closely monitored by Messrs Balsden and Brunner, Dura did not, and could not reasonably have, regarded Mr Alexander's sign-offs as an acceptance by Hue that the works were compliant with the contract and the specifications and free of defects. This inspection regime was a process that Dura sought to control as best it could. I reject the submission that I should find that the works were not infected by systemic defects, as alleged, because Mr Alexander was signing off large areas of work. That is not what happened.

469 Dura goes further, contending that sign-offs establish rectification of particular defects and Hue, having failed to establish the presence of that defect, had no entitlement to compensation. Particular defects were rectified, that is not in doubt, but the systemic defective and non-compliant nature of the works was not rectified and accordingly the cost of rectification of a particular defect is not a relevant inquiry. The sign-offs were evidence that the defect signed off was accepted by Mr Alexander as corrected in the nominated location, not elsewhere. Having been notified of a type of defect and having corrected some instances of it, Dura failed, for want of quality control measures, to ensure the type of defect was not typical of the work of that trade, repeated through the project. Hue's consultants and witnesses later found the same type of defect existed in other locations throughout the project. Only the removal of joinery and plasterboard revealed the full extent of the defective work. This discovery confirms the limited utility of the sign-off process. Further, Dura's key witnesses to these sign-offs made these concessions under cross-examination.

470 Mr Brunner conceded that he failed to ensure that Mr Merks (Dura's plastering subcontractor) worked in accordance with Hue's directions. Mr Brunner accepted that it was unreasonable to expect Hue to point out that a particular plasterboard wall was not fireproof when that fact could not be known until the plasterboard was removed. Significantly, Mr Maaser also conceded that the only way Dura could have got Mr Merks to put things right was to require that he remove all the plasterboard for fireproof walls.

471 A major issue was the ceilings. The architectural specifications required suspended ceilings. The specification called for a Rondo proprietary grid type system (or an acceptable equivalent) and specified no alternative system. The Rondo key lock system uses adjustable furring channels clip locking into place to achieve a levelled squared grid for the application of plasterboard, leaving appropriate air space.

472 Photograph shown to Mr Maaser demonstrated, in plastered areas, a different fixing system only adjustable with packers. These photos were in units 3 and 4. Mr Maaser accepted that Dura required prior approval of the work and services before covering up. Mr Maaser said that this was Mr Alexander's task, but then conceded that Mr Alexander only came on site for the first occasion on 22 August 2006, after that plasterwork was done. Although Mr Maaser acknowledged that the specification required the builder to afford reasonable notice and full opportunity for examination and measurement of any work that is about to be covered up, Mr Maaser could not produce any document affording the architect the opportunity to inspect the unit. Mr Maaser replied that during the fortnightly site meetings, there was a site inspection when the architect had opportunities to inspect. The contractual obligation on the contractor under cl 30 is not to afford reasonable opportunity to the principal or its consultants to search for defects. Mr Maaser did not produce any notice given to the architect or that the architect had agreed to the application of plasterboard in units 3 and 4. Mr Maaser accepted that Dura had not correctly installed the ceilings in those units and the ceiling plasterboard had to be removed for rectification.

473 Mr Maaser watched a video of exposed ceilings on level 3. This video demonstrated the use of adjustable fixings located between rigid fixed points. Mr Maaser claimed that such a fitting was adjustable. I do not accept that this is so. The adjustable fixing system, rigidly fixed in place, was inoperable. Another example was found in a photograph showing an adjustable fixing located near an inspection hatch with the ceiling largely rigidly fixed, such rigid fixing being less obvious further away from the inspection hatch. Returning to the video that showed the ceilings on levels 2 and 3, Mr Maaser accepted that Dura did not build the ceilings on levels 2 and 3 in accordance with the specification. Mr Maaser said, 'We knew it was a Bettafix clips on packers, yes'.

474 Dura did not install an adjustable suspension system. This defect was identified in documents attached to the defects notice dated 11 September 2006, specifically item 20 of the internal Defects List dated 24 August 2006 (attachment 28 and 49) which states, in relation to numerous units: 'Lack of approved plasterboard ceiling mounts'. However, instances of this defect identified in the Internal Defects List had been signed off by Ken Alexander on 8 September 2006. The response showing cause did not produce Mr Alexander's sign-off of that date. Nor did Dura identify a viable system of quality assurance to ensure the balance of the ceiling fixings complied with the specifications. Mr Maaser's concessions explain why the sign-offs are of limited utility.

475 Hue made this point another way. Mr Pozzebon proposed opening up the ceiling to a bedroom in unit 8 for inspection on 19 September 2006, prompting Dura to concede that the ceiling fixings in all ground and level 1 units were not in accordance with specifications. Mr Hendricks asserted that the ceiling mounts on levels 2 and 3 had been constructed with adjustable ceiling mounts but Dura did not use the system contractually specified and did not meet the required tolerances. As I noted elsewhere, the fixed system used in ground and level 1 units incorporated the specified system near manholes, installed in a manner that did not permit its proper functioning, but apparently demonstrative of contractual compliance on a cursory inspection. When Mr Pozzebon directed that Dura open the ceiling in unit 8 on 3 October 2006, this deception was established. Dura, having not used the appropriate ceiling fixing methods, retrofitted adjustable clips in some areas that were visible for inspection. Later Hue established that this defect rectification was makeshift, and fixed methods of suspension had been employed throughout the building. As a result, Dura did not achieve contractual tolerances, which explains the evident poor plaster finish. I am satisfied that there was considerable evidence of this type of defect.

476 Dura asserted that it could not use the specified Rondo system because the ceiling space was limited. Mr Pozzebon and Mr Bonaldi both disputed that an adjustable suspension system could not operate in the available ceiling space. After Dura was removed from the project, the Rondo adjustable ceiling fixing system was installed. In any event, Dura never obtained the approval of the architect for the system actually used.

477 A video of level 4 showed a timber ceiling, rather than concrete, supported by steel bondek. The video showed the ceiling grid fixed directly by screws or bolts to the timber; workmanship that Mr Maaser conceded is not consistent with the specifications.

478 I have earlier explained the requirement to comply with manufacturer's installation specifications for fire rated plasterboard. The evidence established that there were defects to the plasterboard or in its installation that could undermine the fire rating. Various witnesses observed holes to allow a penetration that were large, untidy, and probably made by a mechanical blow (e.g. using a hammer) in lieu of coring. Other examples included excessive gaps between sheets, end joints of sheets not joined on studs, damage to plasterboard edges, and excessive spacing between fixing screws for the plasterboard. As I have noted, Hue notified Dura of defects in the fire rated plasterboard or the manner of its installation both before, and by, the notices to show cause. There are examples of such defects in Mr Alexander's sign-offs and Mr Pozzebon acknowledged that Dura did attend to the rectification of some but not all of this type of defect.

479 The requirement of the architectural specification was that the contractor verify that the materials and workmanship employed in the installation of the fire rated plasterboard complied with the manufacturer's requirements. Dura did not do this. I have earlier, at [308] and following, referred to Mr Bonaldi's investigations of the fire rated plasterboard lining the corridors on levels 2 and 3 when inspected from the unit side after the linings were removed inside the units and when he organised for a fire rated wall in unit 5 to be opened up. I am also satisfied that when the works were opened up by Hue in early 2007, many unsealed penetrations were found. Mr Bonaldi's evidence was that both his inspections and the observations recorded in the photographs taken by others satisfied him that Dura's construction method did not conform to the requirements of the plaster manufacturer's manuals. There were numerous examples of defects of this type recorded by Mr Chu, Mr Wong, Mr Alexander and Mr Borgia, which Mr Bonaldi reviewed to confirm the extent of the non-compliant or defective plasterwork that he had later observed was present before the opening up of the works. Many of the instances of these defects in fire rating work were not revealed until after Hue removed the plaster to open up the works to a compliance audit.

480 Mr Maaser agreed that fire-rating protection is dependent upon compliance with the installation instructions. Mr Maaser contended that damage that appeared to compromise fire rating happened when Hue opened up works. He disputed that photographs, put to demonstrate Dura's failure to comply with manufacturer's installation specifications, evidenced poor workmanship. One photo showed that vermiculite, a spray-on fire retardant product applied to steel to give a fire rating, had been scraped off. Mr Maaser rejected the suggestion vermiculite was scraped off to facilitate plasterboard installation. The scraping of the vermiculite happened, he contended, during Hue's demolition after Dura left site, or otherwise. Another photo showed holes that had not been caulked with mastic. Other photos showed cable disappearing into un-caulked holes. Mr Maaser accepted that the absence of caulking jeopardised the fire protection. Other photos showed gaps and holes which had not been properly caulked up and constituted the penetration in a wall where the colour of the plasterboard showed that it was intended to be fire rated. There was on occasion debate about the precise location of the photo. I do not accept Mr Maaser's contention that the opening up of the works caused the evident damage - scraped-off vermiculite or rough punched penetrations.

481 The rendered finish to the eastern façade was to be the public face of the building. Mr Chu and Mr Pozzebon thought the finish achieved by Dura was atrocious. The evidence supported the conclusion that it was not finished to the required standard. It was significantly out of plumb and was not square. Dura contended that it was work in progress and a final coat of render was all that was required.[96] Mr Alexander observed that the walls were not true or parallel and on the front elevation, the wall had a lean of over 60mm, which no amount of render could have fixed. The architectural specifications made detailed requirements for rendering. Problems with the render were raised at a site meeting as early as 31 May 2006, and it was regularly noted in the lists and instructions attached to the notices to show cause. Dura did not address the render in its response to the notices. I am satisfied that Dura's subcontractor applied the render poorly and I reject the suggestion that a final coat was the panacea.

482 Mr Maaser initially argued that the specifications for application of render only applied to cement render and an acrylic render was used. When cross-examined, he conceded that the specifications also applied to acrylic render. This was not the only example of unfamiliarity of Dura employees with the detail of the specification, a point of marked contrast with Mr Chu. Mr Maaser accepted that Hue instructed Dura rectify defects in the render. Dura never did so. When Mr Maaser was taken through a PowerPoint display of photographs of the render, he contended that generally these photographs were taken in a poor light that highlighted blemishes. The evident blemishes were indicative of work in progress that would have been attended to with the application of a final coat. However, Mr Maaser ultimately conceded that, irrespective of the light, the eastern façade had an unacceptable finish requiring further work. Then, in re-examination, Mr Maaser suggested that the render defects were a proper matter for the defects liability period. I disagree. Hue had been raising the quality of the render for months and the manufacturer's representative, Mr Ring, had offered a materials warranty that Hue, justifiably, did not regard as a panacea for poor workmanship. This was not an isolated complaint about workmanship standards.

483 Another issue explored in evidence was that of ceiling heights, which are set out in the drawings. Only after the plaster sheeting was applied, could the finished ceiling heights be properly assessed, and in late August 2006 this issue came through in the defects lists, for example AI 398 on 22 August 2006 and Hue's Internal Defects List dated 24 August 2006. There was a suggestion notated on a copy of AI 398 that this was a design fault, but in evidence Mr Maaser conceded the fault. So do Messrs Lorich and Faifer, when they acknowledged in the joint expert report a ceiling height of 20mm below the contractual requirement, stating that a ceiling lowered by 20mm is 'acceptable'. I have rejected that opinion for other reasons, and I add that Dura put no reasoned explanation why contractual non-compliance, amounting to a significant variation, well outside the permitted tolerances, from the designed finished levels, is 'acceptable'.

484 As I have noted, Mr Brunner was unable to prove the existence of a quality control system. He agreed that he knew Dura had obligations as regards quality control and he said Mr Maaser put the process in place for quality control. Mr Brunner said that if a defect, such as pipe work flowing in the wrong direction, was pointed out to him, he would have it corrected, and he said he would not permit a defect that had been indicated to him be covered over with plasterboard prior rectification and sign off. Mr Brunner could not confirm whether he would check for that defect in other units. When the Alexander sign-off process was operative in early September, Mr Balsden, Mr Alexander and Mr Brunner went around the site to each item on the report before the item was signed off by Mr Alexander (although he could not remember the occasion specifically). Mr Brunner emphasised that if something was signed off, then it had been rectified. For my part, I do not doubt that Dura did rectify some defects.

485 I am satisfied that Dura did not consider that the poor workmanship of a subcontractor evident in one place might be present in other locations. The absence of a quality control system assists in drawing that inference. Mr Brunner could not explain a defect in one apartment, 18, that was rectified and signed off by Mr Alexander, but later identified by the services consultant, Mr Holman, as existing in other apartments. The observed defect was that water supply pipes were in contact with the fire retardant material covering a structural member. Mr Holman's report of 31 August 2005 identified this problem in unit 18. Mr Holman's evidence at trial was that the same defect was evident in units 16, 20 and 21. Commenting on Mr Holman's evidence that this defect was no longer present in unit 18, Mr Brunner declared that Mr Alexander had signed off on this defect. Mr Brunner could not say whether that defect still existed in apartments 16, 20, and 21. When the cross-examiner put to Mr Brunner that when a defect had been corrected and signed off in a particular apartment, he did nothing to ensure it was corrected elsewhere said he 'was not sure'.

486 Mr Brunner could not say how Dura's quality control system allowed a defect that was rectified, and signed off by Mr Alexander in one apartment, to be left existing in other apartments. Mr Brunner said he had a system to check if a defect that was found in one apartment existed in the work of that trade in other apartments. He could not explain what the system was when asked. Mr Brunner also conceded that when a defect was found in an upper storey apartment, he likely did not check in a lower storey apartment for the same type of defect, as the lower storey apartment had already been finished. I reject Mr Brunner's assertion that Dura had a system in place to deal with systemic defects.

487 Dura did not establish any process of inspecting the work of subcontractors, either when completed by them or when Hue's consultants raised an issue. Mr Holman's report of 31 August 2006 provided some examples. This report was Wood & Grieve's last mechanical services report to Hue before it served the notices. The first defect noted in the report was defective insulation around refrigerant pipe work, observed on initial inspection and again on the next inspection. The report notes the defect was present in several places. Mr Brunner could not remember inspecting pipe work. In the period from identification of the defect to Mr Alexander's sign off, Mr Brunner was unable to say when rectification work was carried out. Wood & Grieve's 31 August report stated the defect remained evident. The explanation is that Messrs Brunner and Alexander did not inspect all refrigerant pipe work for deficient installation of insulation.

488 At one stage, Mr Brunner asserted that defects may have been the consequence of Hue opening up the works, but then agreed that this was not so. Taking unit 4 as an example for downstairs units, Mr Brunner could not say that he had inspected unit 4 for defects prior to plastering, but it was 'more than likely' that he had. Mr Brunner knew he was obliged to give notice to the architect before plasterboard sheeting went in but could not produce or identify such notice was for the downstairs units. Given that plastering for unit 4 was done by about 21 June 2006, Mr Brunner agreed there was no way for Mr Alexander to have signed off on defects in unit 4 given he did not arrive on site until 22 August 2006. As I have already noted, Dura produced no evidence of a workable, and working, quality control system when showing cause to the defects notice.

489 Mr Brunner acknowledged that demolition of plasterboard was likely to be necessary with defects in the roughed-in services. An example of this was a penetration that accommodated different services, acknowledged as unworkmanlike. Mr Brunner suggested, nonsensically, that penetrations with shared wiring were incomplete work. However, he agreed that once a ceiling or a second skin of plasterboard is applied, it is no longer possible to see, or rectify, that defect by separating the wiring, without demolishing the plasterboard. Mr Maaser also conceded that rectification of such defects required removal or demolition of later works, like joinery, and demolition and replacement of plasterboard. Mr Bonaldi explained that this was the only option, forcefully expressing the view that non-compliance with the fire rating performance requirements of the BCA could result in a tragedy. I should add that Liquid Lines ultimately found an alternative solution for the fire rating of the level 2 and 3 corridors.

490 Another focus with plasterboard was the finish, particularly the tolerances achieved. Hue complained that the finished plaster sheeting did not meet the specified tolerances for flatness, straightness and plumb. Many photos and videos that showed the poor quality of the plaster finish and Mr Brunner agreed that a lot of the plasterboard 'wasn't good'. Having been taken through the defects evident in the plasterboard, Mr Brunner also agreed that the only way to correct the defects was to rip off the defective plasterboard and to start again. The extent of the defective plasterboard is evident from the visual audit report and was confirmed by Mr Bonaldi. I am satisfied that Mr Brunner's concession was appropriate. Dura's cross-examination about the straight edge used to demonstrate the tolerances for photographs was a diversion.

491 Unit entrance doors on levels 2 and 3 were yet another issue. Such openings were to be 1000mm wide. On 16 August 2006 Mr Pozzebon instructed Dura to rectify the entry doors to have a 1000mm clear opening. The Internal Defects List of 24 August 2006 also notes the defect. On 20 September 2006, it remained unremediated. After Dura returned to the site during the injunction period, Mr Pozzebon instructed Dura to rectify the entry doors and Dura responded with a variation request for $14,310 that was rejected. Dura's denial of responsibility for the openings is evident from the variation request, yet Dura claims to have rectified a small number of openings by 23 October 2006. Dura apparently instructed Messrs Lorich and Faifer that when it left site it was rectifying this defect with three doorways completed.

492 Of considerable significance in proving substantial breach is the joint report of Messrs Holman and Barber on services defects. In respect of the 111 items on which they agreed in the joint conclave, their agreement was that 88 items represented defects, seven of the items were not defects, and for 16 of the items there was insufficient information to determine whether there was a defect in the works. Seven items in relation to fire protection were categorised as 'insufficient information to determine' and in each case the experts could not determine from the photographs that they were examining precisely what was being represented and where it was located. Thus, a poorly sealed penetration of a service through a slab was only a defect if it could be determined that on each side of the slab was a separate sole occupancy unit. The experts accepted another three items relating to pipes being in contact with sprayed fire protection material as defects after reviewing further photos. They agreed that there were 55 defects in the hydraulics services. In many cases, the services would be removed and re-installed to rectify the defect. A failure to adequately clip or support water and waste pipe work could not be rectified without removal of plasterboard. Another agreed defect was inadequate packing under bath bases. Despite agreement between services engineers, the item was a topic of disagreement between building consultants in their conclave. The services experts agreed that several instances of inadequate installation of refrigerant pipe work were not defects because the airconditioning units were yet to be installed. Some instances of damage to airconditioning coils and to flexible duct was indeterminate as to whether it occurred on installation or, later, during Hue's demolition. In other instances, the experts disagreed as Mr Holman maintained, in my view correctly, that if pipe work was adequately restrained and supported, damage during the opening up process was unlikely.

493 There were three types of electrical cables installed on site. Mr Tomkins described the cable types and the requirements of proper workmanship in installation. The communication cables were blue voice and data cables for the phone and internet and black TV cables. The power cables were of two types, thick orange cables that carry the main feed and white cables. The fire detection cables are red. Communication and electrical cables are separated from each other to avoid interference, and have separate penetrations. They ought to cross at 90 degrees to minimise electromagnetic interference and a communications cable should not be wound around an electrical cable. Standard industry practice requires sleeves and grommets around cabling that penetrate steelwork, woodwork or masonry to protect it from damage. Cables running behind a wall must be properly laid out, secured, and supported to ensure they do not run haphazardly. Cables should not be connected to other services for support.

494 I am satisfied that defects of this type were present in the works, uncorrected under Dura's supervision, but drawn to Dura's attention by the superintendent. There was a debate whether Mr Alexander signed off on SI 93 or AI 392 that are not referenced in the relevant sign off. Further, Mr Alexander denied that he signed off on this issue. However, he did sign off on items in the Internal Defects report of 24 August 2006 and the Wood & Grieve report of 31 August 2006. For the reasons I have already expressed, I am satisfied that Dura made some effort to rectify some defects that Mr Tompkins identified, but I consider it was too little, too late.

495 When Hue opened up the works, defects of this type were observed, which again exposes the limitations of Dura's reliance on Mr Alexander's sign-offs, and the reasons are not hard to find. Mr Alexander stated on 22 August 2006 and I am satisfied that at least 70% of the plastering was by then completed. Plainly, once walls are sheeted with plasterboard it is no longer possible to inspect the quality of the services workmanship or for compliance with specifications. The extent of the plastering is evident from Mr Brunner's site diary and from the claimed extent of the plastering and ceiling item allowed in Dura's progress claims.

496 When cross-examined about Mr Alexander's sign-offs, Mr Chu disputed that Mr Alexander had signed off most of the defects or problems identified on the paperwork before the visual audit. Accepting that Dura's purpose in submitting the signoffs in response to the show cause notices was to demonstrate compliance with a request of the superintendent, architect, client or services engineer, Mr Chu did not know what exactly had been signed off or how information was being presented at the signoffs. He did not interpret the lists identifying defects as listing a single defect; they gave notice of conditions spread across the building. Mr Chu suggested that Dura misused the signoff process by suggesting that rectification of one instance of a defect required Hue to accept that Dura rectified all instances. Mr Chu wanted his consultants to carry out thorough inspections for non-compliance. Although their reports were later incorporated into the various defects lists, these lists were not a complete list of all defects in the building.

497 I have extracted some examples to demonstrate why I am satisfied, on the evidence obtained by cross-examination that there were sufficient defects in the works when the notices were served to demonstrate substantial breach of cl 30.

498 In final address, counsel for Dura conceded that there were defects and submitted that the issue was the extent, which counsel contended did not amount to substantial breach. For the reasons given, I find the concession appropriate but reject the submission that the defects that 'Dura was attending to prior to its removal from site' did not amount to substantial breach either when the defects notice was served or when the cl 44.4 notice was served.

Was there substantial breach - the expedition notice?

499 Hue's evidence is support of it contention that Dura was not proceeding with due expedition and without delay was not limited to the analysis and expert opinion on Mr Andrews. There was evidence about Dura's EOT claims, and I have accepted Mr Pozzebon's evidence about how Hue dealt with those applications. It is also relevant to note that Dura appeared to have accepted the superintendent's decision in each case. There was evidence of Dura's claimed entitlement to EOTs that it had not applied for that I do not consider to be relevant to whether Hue has shown that Dura was in substantial breach of cl 33.2 entitling it to serve a cl 44.2 notice. The evidence on these issues, identified in a Scott Schedule, is summarised above, commencing at [259]. Further, during May to September 2006, Hue was focussing Dura's attention on the extent of defects by notice and direction from the superintendent. Hue was aware from site meetings, site inspections and the activities of Mr Ken Alexander at the end of August 2006 that Dura was redirecting resources on site towards dealing with these concerns. Mr Pozzebon gave evidence, which I accept, that Dura, throughout large parts of 2006, did not appear to have adequate resources on site to achieve practical completion by October 2006. Mr Chu and Mr Pozzebon were aware of the apparent lack of resources on site from at least March 2006.

500 Mr Maaser contended that as at 23 October 2006, there were thirteen substantial claims, for which Dura had received little, if any, extension of time. His evidence revealed that Dura had never claimed some alleged entitlements. Other claims appeared grossly inflated, unsupported by the evidence that Dura attempted to lead. Mr Pozzebon's evidence that he dealt with each of those claims, when put in cross-examination to Mr Maaser was not contradicted. I accept Mr Pozzebon's assessments. I do not accept that there is any reason attributable to Hue that entitled Dura to an extension of time beyond 18 October 2006. I am not satisfied that any of these 'claims' affected the critical path. This analysis also supports the conclusion that Dura was not proceeding with due expedition and without delay.

501 Further, Hue was entitled to expect that Dura would comply with cl 33.2 and its failure to do so, contrary to Dura's contentions, is of particular significance in evaluating the progress of the works. I have set out above Dura's failure to obtain the superintendent's approval for a construction program since late 2005, and its efforts to avoid the superintendent having in his possession a construction program in a form that enabled proper assessment of the sequence of activities that constituted the critical path. Hue was justified in its suspicions that Dura intended to avoid proper scrutiny of extension of time claims, delay issues, and Dura's allocation of resources to any part of the construction program or sequence of activities.

502 At the time that the expedition notice was served, Mr Pozzebon was justifiably satisfied that Dura was not proceeding with the works with due expedition and without delay for the following reasons:

(a) taking into account approved EOT claims, the date of practical completion was 18 October 2006;

(b) Dura was not contending it was entitled to any further EOT. It either had not lodged formal claims or disputed rejected claims when it knew the superintendent's attitude to such EOT claims. However, by its latest construction program (emailed 7 July 2006) the nominated date of practical completion was 5 March 2007;

(c) Dura had continued to avoid providing for approval a construction program that complied with the contract. The last approved program was out of date;

(d) the works lacked coordination and efficiency. Dura's refusal to provide the program in a form that permitted Mr Pozzebon to analyse it carefully and thoroughly appeared to be a deliberate strategy to thwart the proper assessment of EOT claims;

(e) Dura's resourcing, across a number of trades, had been and continued to be inadequate to progress the works at the rate required;

(f) the many defects in Dura's workmanship that required rectification would further delay progress;

(g) Dura had failed to comply with many of Mr Pozzebon's instructions resulting in Dura's installing unsatisfactory works that required rectification; and,

(h) a satisfactory rate of progress with the works was not being achieved during the period of May to September 2006.

503 Hue was required to determine, honestly, whether Dura had committed a substantial breach of cl 33.1 of the contract. I am satisfied that Hue made an honest decision in good faith to that effect. I would not set aside that decision. It was, on objective review of the circumstances prevailing in August and September 2006, the fact that Dura was not proceeding with the works with due expedition and without delay. This conclusion is reinforced by the expert evidence.

504 On the question of programming and delay, Mr Browning and Mr Andrews gave concurrent evidence. There is, in evidence, a joint report from the two experts showing that they did not reach any agreement on any matter that might assist me with the issues to be resolved, particularly in relation to methodologies. That is hardly surprising for two reasons. I have ruled that Mr Browning's evidence is inadmissible by reason of s 76 of the Evidence Act, on the ground that I am not satisfied that he possesses the necessary specialist knowledge. Secondly, the parties instructed these experts to consider different issues.

505 Hue asked Mr Andrews to consider the following three questions:

(a) was Dura proceeding with the works with due expedition and without delay as at 11 September 2006, when Hue issued the notice to show cause;

(b) did Dura progress the works with due expedition and without delay in the period from 11-20 September 2006; and,

(c) express any other relevant views or observations to the progress of the works.

506 Broadly speaking, Mr Andrews has addressed the issues that must be considered, as he has addressed how Dura carried out its task load over a period of time which established that it was not in fact proceeding with due expedition but was slipping further behind and this slippage was not explained by reference to any claims for extension of time. It resulted from the need to attend to defective and non-compliant work.

507 Dura received possession of the site on 28 October 2004. The contract date of practical completion was 70 working weeks (350 days) from the date of possession of the site. The superintendent extended the date for practical completion to 18 October 2006 on assessment of EOT claims. Dura submitted that I should reject a methodology Mr Browning appeared to adopt; that delay could be assessed by whether the proper date for practical completion could be achieved. Mr Browning assumed, on instructions without verifying the claims, that Dura's further EOT claims had caused delay of 140 days. Mr Browning assessed the earliest date for practical completion was 14 March 2007. Predicated on a date for practical completion of 18 October 2006, Dura contended that it followed that the notice to show cause was not valid.

508 Mr Andrews identified shortcomings in Dura's construction programming that concerned Hue at the time. Dura's construction programs, issued to the superintendent during the course of the works, were of a poor standard in a number of respects. The programs did not have sufficient information to indicate the current progress of the works. The programs were not statused, meaning updated,[97] to take into account the future works remaining. Plainly, an updated current program communicates to those reading it the current progress of the works and the outstanding works required to achieve practical completion. The programs did not clearly indicate the critical path of the remaining activities. Mr Andrews was concerned that delay to construction activities that are on the critical path, wherever that might be at any particular point in time, would affect the progress of the works to practical completion. Usually, the necessary sequence of construction activities is defined in the program by links between activities. Logical linkages were missing from Dura's programs. Mr Browning did not identify these shortcomings. He suggested the construction programs were reasonable and of a standard commonly used for projects of this type. During the concurrent evidence session, Mr Browning conceded that Mr Andrews' criticisms of the programs were well founded.

509 In other respects, Mr Browning's evidence confirmed the basis of my ruling. Mr Browning's description of the methodology he adopted to assess EOT issues was either obscure, or, if I understand it correctly, inappropriate. Dura did not independently establish his assumed facts. Mr Browning instructed Dura to prepare varied programs and it was upon these varied, reconstructed programs that he expressed his opinions. It is not possible to determine, either from his report or from other evidence led by Dura, what precise variations were adopted. The process is not transparent. It does not appear capable of being replicated. Neither Hue not the court can evaluate Mr Browning's adopted variations to the construction programs.

510 I would disregard Mr Browning's evidence in both the joint report and from the witness box for these further reasons. Although Mr Andrews was cross-examined about the nature of his education, training, and experience, the cross-examiner reinforced in my mind the view apparent from his curriculum vitae - that Mr Andrews possessed specialist knowledge of construction programming. I accept Mr Andrews' methodology and assessment, which I will now explain.

511 In June 2006, Mr Andrews reviewed the construction program provided, in paper form, by Dura to advise Hue whether the program satisfied contractual requirements, was useful to monitor the progress of the project, or relevant to assess potential EOT claims. As Dura provided only a hard copy of the program to the superintendent, Mr Andrews' review was equally limited.

512 Mr Andrews identified the project's scope of works from the drawings provided to him, to ensure the program adequately represented the scope of works in. He noted that the program, sectioned by floor levels, did not represent the eight different types of units. The program showed certain activities (for lock-up, services, and fit-off) to be common for each floor while the drawings showed variation in the scope of works between floors and apartment types. The program adequately represented the varying scope of works and revealed the contractor's intentions, although with limited details for some activities. Although 'façade' was represented in the program, there were no successor activities and nothing to indicate how the facade would be accessed during construction or in what sequence it was to be erected. The facade was a major component in the project and its construction affected access to the site.

513 Mr Andrews evaluated whether the fundamentals in the program were sufficient for monitoring the progress of the works and for use in assessing EOT claims. Mr Andrews considered that the durations for specific activities appeared reasonable for review purposes, although only start and finish dates and durations were provided for each activity. No float, logic or late start and finish dates were provided. The critical path of the program was not defined and could not be derived or identified from the information provided. The float for each activity was not provided. With such limitations, a complete review of the program was not possible. The program did not show the progress of the works and the status of the works could not be assessed. Mr Andrews observed that Dura's failure to follow industry practice of recording 'percentage completion' when regularly updating its program significantly diminished the utility of the construction programs. Dura did not reschedule or 'status' its programs to indicate the progress of the works and to forecast practical completion. The program included a number of delay activities.

514 The program layout was not easily readable. Mr Andrews considers it is important that program layout represents how the works were being undertaken on site. Mr Andrews considered it might have been more appropriate to group the apartments according to design type, rather than level by level as the program showed. The hard copy of the program also did not identify predecessor or successor activities. Without an electronic copy of the program, adequate assessment of the logical relationship between activities was not possible. A manual assessment of the logic indicated a number of discrepancies or 'not logical' relationships between activities.

515 Mr Andrews concluded that by reason of these deficiencies, the program was unlikely to provide accurate monitoring of project progress and could lead to an inaccurate forecast completion date. In addition, without a clearly identifiable critical path, Dura's construction program did not allow EOT assessment with any confidence. As the program did not show 'the sequence of activities which constitute the critical path', the program did not satisfy cl 33.2 of the contract. Dura's programs included activities that appear to relate to delays. Mr Andrews considered that an acceptable program could not include 'delay activities' in the program. Had the program presented the date of practical completion and accurately presented the status of the works, the program would permit appropriate assessment of actual delay.

516 When in February 2010 Mr Andrews was asked to express an opinion about the progress of the works, he adopted the methodology that I have set out above commencing at [122]. Concerning progress with the works generally, Mr Andrews assumed that the approved date of practical completion was 18 October 2006 and he assumed Dura was not entitled to any further EOT beyond 18 Oc[98]ber 2006.98 He noted that by Dura's construction programs issued after 8 May 2006 the works were significantly delayed and unlikely to be completed by 18 October 2006. A construction program prepared on 24 July 2006 indicates practical completion would be achieved on 5 March 2007, a delay of 76 working days. Dura's construction program prepared on 17 November 2006 showed a date of practical completion of 30 March 2007, a delay of 93 working days. The analysis of Dura's own programs indicated to Mr Andrews it was not proceeding with due expedition and without delay during the period since May 2006 that these programs covered.

517 Using the updated programs Mr Andrews had prepared for the following status dates: 30 August, 7, 14 and 19 September 2006, he assessed the forecast date of practical completion. Comparison with the previous status date demonstrated any gain or slippage in progress in the intervening period. Mr Andrews concluded about the 12 workdays between 30 August and 19 September 2006 that Dura lost 9 working days, achieving only 3 working days' progress. There was a 75% slippage rate. Mr Andrews observed a consistent loss of time between each statused program. Mr Andrews described the critical path of the statused programs to be through the following key activities:

• installing joinery to ground floor apartments;
• tiling to wet areas to ground, first, second and third floors;
• final clean; and,
• landscaping.

A careful examination showed that during September 2006, Dura lost time in the completion of the joinery and tiling. Mr Andrews expressed his opinion that given that Dura lost 9 working days with a slippage rate of 75% over the period 30 August to 19 September 2006, his opinion was that Dura was not proceeding with due expedition and without delay during September 2006.

518 Mr Andrews considers the requirements of cl 33.2 in relation to construction programs to be relatively generic. Mr Andrews' explained aspects of the prudent and reasonable use of construction programs. Mr Andrews observed that well developed and monitored construction programs assist in the timely delivery of construction projects. They assist all parties of the project team, both contractor and principal, to plan and monitor the works. Prioritising the completion of activities or allocation of resources and trades used on the project is achievable. They assist in the assessment of the impact of delay events on practical completion. Mr Andrews made three particular observations about prudent industry practice that explains the utility of construction programs in the assessment of whether the contractor is proceeding with due expedition and without delay:

(a) programs will be updated (or statused) to include the progress of the works completed. It is industry practice to include 'percentage completion' for all activities recorded at the status date. The program typically reschedules to show the progress of the works, after the status of all activities is updated. Dura's updated programs revealed changed logical linkages and durations. Save for its program issued 17 November 2006, the status of individual activities in Dura's programs is not apparent, bringing into question the forecast date of practical completion;

(b) to ensure that the critical path is correctly identified, activities ought to be linked to following activities with 'successor' linkages. If all activities have successors, then any logical changes, duration changes, or delays will flow through and translate correctly to show the implications for other activities in the program. The program will reveal whether changes/delays can affect practical completion; and,

(c) on most programs there is a dominant critical path out of multiple critical paths. Activities are seldom co-critical because that would mean all activities finish at exactly the same time, yet the Dura programs showed many co-critical activities implying that almost everything on the project was critical.

Mr Andrews' analysis also demonstrated Dura's inappropriate use of working day calendars, to determine the actual start and finish date of activities.

519 Mr Andrews rejected Mr Browning's alternative methodology that required an assessment of the outstanding EOT claims. By reason of my ruling, I need not pause to explain that debate, except to record that Mr Browning's methodology provides no appropriate independent expert review of Dura's actual conduct on site. Mr Browning explained that he was instructed by Dura to use the sequence and timing of the works provided to him by Mr Maaser and his method reinforced, and did not critically review, Dura's assessment of its progress. There was significant collaboration between Mr Maaser and Mr Browning in the preparation of Mr Browning's report that Mr Browning conceded he could not identify. Thus, his opinions were not reasoned, wholly or substantially by his expertise, from a set of proved assumptions. Mr Andrews' 'time impact' methodology is a contemporaneous assessment which uses information available to the contractor and the superintendent at the time of the delay event to assess what was critical and whether a delay event is likely to impact on the date of practical completion. It was, in Mr Andrews' opinion, the most appropriate methodology to use because it assesses the information available to the superintendent and the contractor at the time of the delay event.

520 On both his general review of the construction programs and a snapshot analysis of the period in September 2006, Mr Andrews concluded that Dura was not proceeding with the works with due expedition and without delay. I accept that this conclusion is correct. I prefer the methodology of working from an independent analysis of the source documents. As Mr Andrews explained, blatant acceptance of the contractor's EOT claims is misconceived, yet that assumption lay at the heart of Mr Browning's analysis. Mr Browning was either not prepared, or not instructed, to do an extensive forensic search through the project records for each EOT claim to determine, independently, its validity. Mr Browning has not properly addressed his obligations under the Expert's Code of Conduct by qualifying his conclusions with reference to the constraints upon his instructions and as a result, his methodology.

521 For these reasons I am satisfied that Hue has established that there was a default constituted by a substantial breach of cl 33.1 that entitled it to serve a cl 44.2 notice on Dura to show cause.

522 On 8 September 2006, Dura provided a response to the four notices, comprising five letters from its solicitor, supported by two lever arch folders of materials. The form of the responses does not suggest that Dura applied much thought to the process contemplated by cl 44. One response available to Dura was to seek further or more specific particulars of the issues raised by the notices. If the issues raised were adequately clear, the cl 44 process contemplates a formal communication between the contracting parties. Cause will not be shown by complying with a direction, or rectifying a defect, but not responding to the notice. The contract does not contemplate that the principal must continually inspect and monitor the contractor's performance. There is very little by way of submission by Dura about why Hue should not exercise a right referred to in cl 44. Rather, by the first of the letters, Dura rejected the validity of the notices, on the ground that they were not authorised by valid resolution of the directors of Hue, a contention since abandoned. Dura's second contention was that the show cause notices were not issued bona fide, being oppressive. This response can hardly be characterised as showing cause about the exercise of rights under cl 44. Dura was rejecting the process under the contract. The difficulty for Dura was that once Hue dismissed these concerns, as it rightly could, that basis for showing cause evaporated. This was apparent three days later when Freehills responded on Hue's behalf to the solicitor's letters. At that time, the notices were re-served and Hue invited Dura to submit further material in response, if it desired to do so. Yet, neither was there an application to the court to restrain reliance on invalid or oppressive notices, nor was there a request for more detailed particulars of Hue's concerns.

523 The remaining letters each dealt separately with each notice served. As I am satisfied that there was substantial breach of the contract as asserted by each notice (leaving aside the insurance notice) and that the notices were properly served as a bona fide exercise of the contractual right possessed by Hue under cl 44.2 and cl 44.3, I turn to consider how cause was shown to each notice.

524 In passing, I note that in response to the insurance notice Dura produced copies of policies, schedules, and certificates of currency. This response demonstrated that, assuming there was a breach of cl 21.1, which requires proof that required insurance has been effected and maintained, cause was shown that Hue should not exercise a right under cl 44.4 because the insurance had, in fact been effected and was being maintained. As I have noted, Hue accepted that Dura showed cause on this notice.

525 By its response to the defects notice, Dura denied that there was any failure to use the standard of materials or provide the standard of workmanship required by the contract. Dura drew Hue's attention to three documents dated 28 August, 1 September, and 6 September. These documents were Mr Ken Alexander's 'sign offs', that I have dealt with. Further, Dura asserted that photographs showed incomplete works, not defective works, or identified defects now signed off by Mr Alexander.

526 On 19 September 2006, Dura provided further material in response, a letter from its solicitor and a report by an 'expert' Mr David Gairns. This unsatisfactory response is instructive about why Dura's response showing cause was poor. It is apparent on any objective review of Mr Gairns' report that he does not say that he had a copy of the contract, specifications or drawings. His deliberations appear to be limited to commenting on some particular issues rather than upon the defects notice generally. Mr Gairns selected unit 2 as a sample to review a single report provided to Dura by Mr Pozzebon. Presumably, these were his instructions. Much of Mr Gairns report is critical of the quality of the Pozzebon report selected for his attention. He called it unhelpful. Mr Gairns did not give evidence as an expert at trial. Mr Gairns says, after diligent searching, he could not find many defects. I suspect his search was limited to the sample unit chosen.

527 There is no evidence that Dura or Mr Gairns sought any assistance from Hue or its representatives to identify the defects and neither had they complained of this fact when first responding to the notice. Mr Gairns effectively stated that on a fair assessment of the works to date, Hue's complaints of defects were unfounded, implying that Hue was acting unreasonably in serving the notice. What Mr Gairns did not do was apply his apparent expertise to the whole of the works and present a view about whether Dura was complying with cl 30.1 of the contract. I infer that Mr Gairns understood Dura's attitude that the notice was not a valid or bona fide exercise of cl 44 rights. Limiting his report to a critical assessment of Hue's attitude and of the form of the particular report that he had been given did Dura a disservice. It hardly matters whether the disservice was purchased or self-inflicted. It might have assisted Dura to show cause possibly successfully had Mr Gairns been invited, without preconceptions, to take a broad and independent view of the circumstances then prevailing. Mr Gairns was not the only 'blinkered' consultant with a role in this dispute.

528 I am satisfied that there was an ongoing failure to use the standard of materials or provide the standard of workmanship required by the contract, and that the failure constituted a substantial breach of cl 30.1. Mr Thomas, consulting to the financier St George Bank, estimated on 8 September 2006 that the cost to rectify defective materials and workmanship was $538,320. Dura did not challenge this estimate at trial. Dura said very little at trial about the adequacy of its response to the notices. On the one hand, as I have already noted, it challenged the validity of the notices and Hue's bona fides in its actions. On the other hand, it challenged the process of review of Dura's response by Hue. The circumstances required Dura to face the fact of its ongoing failure to use the standard of materials or provide the standard of workmanship required by the contract. Whether or not it could show cause to Hue not to exercise a cl 44.4 right, its chosen response was misconceived.

529 Dura's letter made plain that the overlap in the particulars given of the directions did not concern it at the time, as it acknowledged the repetition and followed suit in its response. It denied that it had failed to comply with any direction of the superintendent, providing a folder of documents comprising the alleged direction and where applicable, its response, which it contended made clear that there had been compliance with directions 'by the superintendent and/or the architect'. Many of these responses fell well short of the objective stated by Dura's solicitor in the letter. The materials showing cause are not easy to follow. There is no narrative. Some of the copies of the directions provided by Dura show hand written annotations which presumably Dura expected Hue to decipher and interpret. In other cases there are bundles of correspondence following up on one of the issues raised, which may have included variation requests or requests for information and like documents. There are copies of directions reproduced without any explanation or comment at all. Some directions are followed with a faxed instruction to a subcontractor. There are promises to attend to an issue raised as directed. There is considerable duplication. I will give some examples.

530 Defects list 1 bears a hand written annotation 'Doug (Maaser) to follow up with Peter Brunner and prepare a draft response'. I have explained the developments in relation to defects list 1 above.

531 The letter giving the superintendent's direction for defects list 2 bears a similar hand written annotation. The direction required a response within 7 days but the note, dated 11 days later, is to Doug and Peter, not Hue. The response required by Mr Pozzebon was that Dura identify a rectification method and timetable to the superintendent. In the show cause materials, the list itself is annotated against each item with the name of the subcontractor, or 'Peter to check', or 'is this a variation?', or 'where'. There was no assertion that Dura communicated to Mr Pozzebon, as a response to the direction given, that it complied with the direction within the time allowed. However, Dura provided, to the architect on 5 May 2006, an explanation of its response to the direction. When it did respond, its response to the direction was adequate.

532 AI 210 raised fire safety issues following an inspection by the building surveyor. Directed to ensure it met the building surveyor's conditions, Dura produced copies of faxes to relevant subcontractors - 'for your information, records, and action' - but no more.

533 Its show cause response to AI 269 was to produce a fax to Mr Chan, in response to his direction that largely disputed the consultant's observations. Mr Chan referred it to MacCormacks who accepted that Dura had attended to three of seven items. Dura's show cause materials included correspondence about the exhaust fan substitution for the Odourvac system, including a fax disputing the manner in which Hue had responded to its claimed variation. The correspondence related to the process by which the superintendent declared an ambiguity or discrepancy, which he resolved without allowing either a variation or an extension of time.

534 Dura's response to the expedition notice was a letter from its lawyers, a copy of Dura's extension of time register, and a folder of documents that Dura said it had previously submitted to the superintendent. Dura claimed that the expected delay to completion of the works did not arise from any default on its part, and that it was expressly entitled to receive extensions of time pursuant to cl 35.5. Dura developed a submission that it did not need formally to make EOT claims in order to show cause to the expedition notice. Dura did not formally dispute the superintendent's prior rejection of the EOT claims by the material submitted to show cause. Dura purported to 'reserve its rights'. The content of this reservation was then, and has remained, obscure. Dura merely asserted an obligation on the superintendent to grant 'an appropriate extension of time'. At its highest, Dura's material might be construed as an invitation to the superintendent to reconsider each of the prior EOT claims, but without any further material or submission that might persuade the superintendent to a different view to that originally held.

535 Next, Dura boldly contended that the currently approved construction program does not reflect Dura's entitlements to extensions of time and cannot be used as a measure of the progress of the works or be used to support a contention that Dura was failing to proceed with due expedition. Dura asserted that the superintendent had unreasonably refused to approve a current construction program. Dura did not identify the construction program that Hue ought to have approved, although Dura contended that the 'current' construction program was comprehensive and identified the critical path. Despite the history of this particular issue, Dura did not, as part of showing cause to this notice produce the program in its native electronic format. Rather, its solicitor engaged in argumentative analysis that essentially stated matters raised by the report from Knowles (Australia) Pty Ltd dated 15 June 2006.

536 Dura contended that it was carrying out its works in accordance with 'the current construction program', which it appears to distinguish from the 'latest approved construction program' dated 7 November 2005. Dura was admitting that it was not carrying out the works in accordance with the latest approved program as required by cl 33.2(f) of the contract. This is clear from Dura's assertion that the projected completion date is 'February-March 2007', a date that had been 'confirmed by the contractor', boldly asserted as if a relevant approval. By reference to the series of unapproved programs, Dura maintained that the superintendent had approved the 'projected' completion date, despite 'additional and continuing delaying events' being encountered on site. Dura argues that after allowing for such matters, the progress of the work has continued 'in compliance with the planned levels'.

537 For the reasons I have given, Hue could not evaluate these assertions against Dura's unapproved programs, provided in breach of its obligations under cl 33.2. In Dura's circumstances, the central requirement to show cause was an approvable construction program that enabled Hue to evaluate those contentions. Dura merely continued in the combative mind set that I have elsewhere described, acting presumably on advice that to do so was to show cause appropriately. The nature of the show cause response required Mr Pozzebon to revisit the earlier EOT claims and he did so. Dura effectively contended that its response cast upon Hue an obligation to prove that Dura was not entitled to any further extensions of time and it maintained this contention at trial. It may have been possible for Dura to have recast that onus, but the material served to show cause why Hue should not exercise a right under cl 44.4 fell well short of achieving that end.

538 Dura increased its work force and much of the activity involved plastering. By 7 September 2006, Mr Pozzebon was concerned that Dura was asserting that defects had been rectified, but when they came to be inspected, Dura was avoiding inspection or not providing proper access for inspection. On 8 September 2006, Mr Pozzebon required that Dura provide a letter confirming that all works areas noted as being defective had been rectified prior to re-inspection by the superintendent's representative and requiring a 48-hour minimum notice. Mr Pozzebon then instructed Mr Ken Alexander not to sign off unless Dura had given appropriate notice so that he, along with Mr Chan or the appropriate consultant could inspect the works if necessary. Mr Pozzebon required this procedure to ensure that the rectification works met the contract standard and to require Dura to put in place its own quality assurance procedures rather than relying on external consultants to perform that function. Nonetheless, the independent consultants were all inspecting during this period and did so, presenting reports to Mr Pozzebon or Mr Chu.

Hue's deliberations on the show cause materials

539 Mr Chu accepted Dura's complaint of insufficient time to respond and directed re-issue of the notices in an identical form to those issued on 4 September 2006 but stipulating that Dura's response be required by 19 September 2006.

540 In the meantime, Mr Chu examined Dura's materials in response to the notices. He particularly noted Mr Alexander's sign-offs of:

(a) 28 August 2006 in relation to rough-ins for Units 19 - 25 and 27; and,

(b) 1 September 2006 for the fire rated plasterboard in the corridors of levels 2 and 3, which recorded inspection of all services.

Mr Chu noted that many defects were not addressed by these sign-offs, including defects in the render, door entry openings, incorrect ceiling heights, the use of an incorrect ceiling suspension system, penetrations that had not been backfilled, non-compliant concrete finishes, exposed reinforcement in the concrete slab, airconditioning units without anti-vibration mounts installed, airconditioning condensate pipe work without proper fall, and the failure to install the substitute for the Odourvac Ceiling Exhaust Fan. Mr Chu did consider acceptable the statements made by Mr Alexander, as the services works required inspection and approval by the relevant services engineers. Mr Chu rejected the assertion that 'defects' were in fact 'incomplete works' when plasterboard was about to be applied or, more particularly, when those works were already beneath the plasterboard or within painted plasterboard. He also did not consider that works could be described as incomplete when the scaffolding needed to rectify the works (e.g. render) had been removed.

541 Mr Wong and Mr Chu prepared a spreadsheet analysing the responses provided to the directions notice. They identified the directions and their content, whether Dura responded and, if so, the time taken to respond. They identified that 32 directions did not draw a contemporaneous response, and no response was provided in the material showing cause. Where a response was provided, it was assessed for adequacy in a reasoned way. In the spreadsheet, very few responses have been classified as adequate. Of the responses, Mr Chu considered 13 to be unsatisfactory for various reasons including that the response:

(a) was merely a communication to a subcontractor without evidence of compliance by the subcontractor or monitoring of that subcontractors response by Dura;

(b) was Dura submitting a variation;

(c) was incomplete or partial;

(d) relied on matters already rejected by the superintendent; or

(e) disputed the validity of the direction and provided no assurance that defects had been or would be rectified.

I am satisfied that the responses were appropriately characterised.

542 Mr Chu also reviewed the material in response to expedition notice. There were 11 EOT claims for a total of 714 days of additional time. To September 2006, the superintendent had assessed all EOT claims that had been submitted and granted about 43 days extension and Mr Chu considered that a claim for 714 days of additional time, in the context of an approved program to complete all of the works in about 393 days, was not credible. Dura had not shown that it had mitigated delay, or could mitigate future delay. Mr Chu took issue that Mr Maaser's material, produced to the court as the response to the notices, was complete. He said the materials produced to the court included documents not produced in September 2006 and omitted documents that were then provided.

543 There was, also, a lot happening on site during the show cause period. From 4 to 19 September 2006, Mr Chu saw and considered further reports which detailed defects in the works - a report from Dominic Borgia of DLB Project Management; a direction from Mr Pozzebon to Mr Hendricks referring to defects identified on the north and south elevations; and a lengthy report from the architect dated 5 September 2006 summarising its overall view of the quality of workmanship, lack of compliance with standards, specifications, and drawings, an evident lack of co-ordination and good practice in and about the site and the works sequencing, and excessive use of RFIs and variations. Mr Burrows, a director of JCB, expressed to Mr Chu his opinion that JCB was very concerned that the finished product would not be in accordance with the requirements of the Specification, Drawings, Australian Standards, the BCA and overall general good building practice.

544 These reports concerned Mr Chu but he did not consider that Dura was required to show cause in respect of them. He did send a copy of Mr Burrow's letter to Mr Hendricks, who responded to Mr Pozzebon in detail addressing the concerns raised. Mr Hendricks had asserted that Dura had responded to all defects lists and 90% of the alleged defects had been rectified, and confirmed as rectified by Mr Alexander and others. Mr Hendricks stated that Dura was also attending to the most recent defects list, concerning the north elevation. Mr Hendricks also contended that Dura was complying with the contract documents, but that RFIs and variations had become necessary, as the design had not complied with BCA requirements in all respects. Mr Hendricks denied that Dura had a problem sequencing the works, suggesting that the indicia of that issue were in fact the result of a lack of detail on contract documents, late instructions from the superintendent, and variations by Hue to the works and the finishes. Mr Hendricks stated that the number of RFIs concerned Dura as well, suggesting there was clear evidence of inadequate design documentation by Hue and its architects. Mr Hendricks has not persuaded me, at trial, to accept those assertions. Mr Chu took this response into account in his assessment.

545 Mr Chu received a further report from Wood & Grieve on 7 September that indicated that some of the items in the defects and directions notices had been rectified by Dura (or at least in part) but that some defects remained unrectified. He considered this report in assessing whether cause had been shown.

546 During the show cause period, Mr Chu personally inspected the site. On 13 September 2006, Mr Chu discussed the status of defect rectification works with Messrs Pozzebon, Chan, and Trent Alexander and met with the joiner. He noted that there were more workers then on site but he also saw that some defects were not being fixed, for example, the plasterboard finishes. In other instances, he saw superficial attempts being made. Mr Chu observed through a manhole that Dura had installed an adjustable ceiling hangar (as was required by the project documentation) close to the manhole but that fixed ceiling hangars were installed in the remainder of the ceiling space. On 19 September 2006, Mr Chu attended the site with, among others, Messrs Chan, Pozzebon, and Hendricks to test the render, ceiling plasterboard, a round window for the presence of Masonite packers and a bathroom doorframe for the application of sealant. Mr Chu observed that Dura had not rectified the render. Mr Chu did not consider adequate a guarantee being proffered by the render supplier because it would not cover the workmanship of the application of the render, only the quality of the render product. There were no Masonite packers between the metal window ring and the blockwork and in the bathroom inspected, the bathroom doorframe had been primed and coated behind and at the bottom to prevent water penetration. Mr Chu expected that what he had observed in relation to these examples could apply generally concerning those defects. He discussed the ceiling mounting system with Mr Hendricks, who confirmed that the ceiling mounts in the townhouses had not been changed but that the units on levels 2 and 3 now included adjustable ceiling mounts. Mr Chu also considered Mr Gairns' report, his copy annotated by Mr Wong.

547 I am satisfied that Mr Chu had regard to all of the materials provided by Dura on both 8 and 19 September 2006 in assessing whether or not Dura had shown reasonable cause under the contract. Mr Chu also asked Mr Pozzebon and Mr Wong to consider Dura's response.

548 On review of Dura's two folders of material, Mr Pozzebon prepared a short memo for Mr Chu. He noted instances where Dura provided no response. In other instances, handwritten notes on documents, or a facsimile cover sheet to a subcontractor, formed the show cause response. In compiling his memo, Mr Pozzebon not only took into account Dura's documentary response, as he had observed what was occurring on site visits during the response period. Mr Pozzebon spoke regularly to Ken Alexander and Dominic Borgia who were also performing site inspections. He inspected the site himself on 19 September 2006, inspecting a number of units on each level to observe the status of the works. He received and read Mr Gairns' report. Mr Pozzebon accepted that some defects had been rectified between the date of a photograph and the date of later inspection, and took that into account. Mr Pozzebon informed Mr Chu that Dura's response overall did not give him confidence that Dura was improving its management of defects or that its supervision of subcontractor works had improved. He did not consider Dura's documentary response to be adequate. As I have elsewhere noted, Mr Pozzebon also reviewed the material submitted in response to the expedition notice and looked again at Mr Chan's assessments, when superintendent, as well as his own assessments.

549 On 20 September 2006, Mr Chu met with Ms Tan, Mr Wong, Mr Pozzebon, and Mr Chan to discuss Dura's response to Hue's show cause notices. All agreed in evidence,[99] and I accept, that the detailed minutes taken at the meeting were an accurate summary of the discussion that took place at the meeting. Each person present had reviewed Dura's response materials. They agreed a process to work through the notices and the response materials one by one. If they agreed that Dura had not shown cause in relation to any one notice, then Hue would consider whether it was reasonable to take any step and if so, whether to terminate the contract or take the works from Dura.

550 Their initial consideration was that Dura had shown cause to the insurance notice, which Hue would disregard in further deliberations.

551 Mr Pozzebon reported to the meeting that Dura had failed to make sufficient progress on defects. He considered Dura had still not complied with all of his instructions, many of which had been outstanding for some months. He had seen no real change or improvement in the quality or management of the works or in Dura's rate of progress. He considered Dura was being reactionary to site instructions rather than ensuring contract compliant works. Mr Pozzebon estimated that Dura had rectified approximately 20% of the defects identified in those notices but that approximately 80% remained unrectified. He formed this assessment using the memorandum he prepared on 8 September, from his own observations, and after considering Dura's claim that 90% of the alleged defects had in fact been rectified and confirmed by the superintendent's representative and others. Mr Pozzebon commented that Dura had not provided an often-sought plan for rectification works either during the works or in response to the notices to show cause. Mr Pozzebon expressed no confidence in Dura complying with the contract requirements. The diligence of Mr Alexander was, he thought, responsible for the rectification that Dura had achieved to date. Mr Pozzebon informed the meeting that the defects related to all facets of the project and were likely, if not properly rectified, to affect significantly and detrimentally the quality of the finished project. Asked by Mr Chu for his views on whether Dura's resources, supervision, and commitment had varied, Mr Pozzebon accepted that there had been an increase in resources but the allocation of resources was well below what a project of this size required. However, he considered Dura's increase in resources being applied to be reactive to the extent of the defects being identified by Hue's consultants. Mr Pozzebon remained concerned about poor communications between Dura and its subcontractors, no system of quality control, and the ongoing lack of attention to defects and instructions. In Mr Pozzebon's view, these matters demonstrated poor on-site management, poor co-ordination between sub-trades and poor construction management supervision.

552 When asked by Mr Chu to comment on his belief concerning Dura's capacity to rectify defects and complete the project to the contractual standard, Mr Pozzebon justified his lack of confidence in Dura by reference to four points:

• there was no quality assurance program;
• there was no formal response, such as a rectification schedule, to the defects notice;
• there were too many instances needing two or more inspections before work could be said to have been rectified or was actually identified as compliant with the contractual standard; and,
• Dura's lack of a pro-active response.

553 Mr Pozzebon was challenged in cross-examination on these assessments, particularly his assessments of the percentages and I am satisfied that they are no more than general estimates, not intended to be precise, and based on his analysis of the written materials submitted by Dura, Dura's conduct during the show cause period and his observations on site. I accept that Mr Pozzebon has a good general idea about where, overall, the job was, without having knowledge of every identified defect. Given the extent of the defects in issue, such general assessments are appropriate on a show cause assessment. The assessment did not require that the default had been fully remedied and reference to those general assessments by Mr Chu in assessing whether Dura had shown cause was appropriate. Mr Pozzebon made his assessments honestly and they were reasonable in the circumstances that prevailed on 20 September 2006.

554 Those present at the meeting discussed the history of developing concern about defect issues and a number of conclusions were agreed. Again, I accept that these conclusions were honestly reached and were reasonable in the circumstances:

• Dura may be attempting to cover over defects with plaster sheeting;
• non-compliant works may already be covered up;
• Dura's excuses that identified defects were just work in progress were contrary to the evidence on site;
• Dura's shop drawings were lacking, or inadequate, suggesting inadequate planning;.
• the absence of evidence of a quality assurance program or procedures; and,
• no acceptable construction program, despite numerous demands.

555 Those present at the meeting agreed that, on the defects notice, Dura had not shown cause that Hue should not exercise its rights. They deferred a decision about what Hue should do until they had considered the remaining notices and the show cause materials.

556 Turning to the directions notice, Mr Chu asked Mr Pozzebon to report to the meeting on his review of Dura's response material and the status of its compliance with superintendent's directions. Mr Pozzebon told the meeting he had reviewed the materials and audited the status of compliance with directions when on site the previous day. In Mr Pozzebon's opinion, the responses to the show cause notice were minimal. In many instances, the response was just a copy of the original instruction. He estimated that less than 10% of the directions had received a reply, identifying door widths, Odourvac, construction program and the original materials upon which the scaffolding provisional sum had been assessed as a few of the important directions that had not been complied with. Mr Pozzebon considered that the presence and urging of the superintendent's representative had improved attention to detail but it remained unclear how Dura would comply with instructions when it had not produced, when showing cause, a rectification schedule, a program of the works, or a methodology for tackling, addressing and complying with all of the issued SIs and AIs. Further, there were too many issues on which Dura had ignored multiple requests and directions. Mr Pozzebon acknowledged that Dura had been attempting, during September, to comply with directions. Although that work appeared generally compliant, the active presence of the superintendent's representative was the only source of comfort.

557 Mr Chu asked Mr Pozzebon to comment about whether there had been any variation in Dura's compliance with directions. Mr Pozzebon told the meeting that, in his view, the increasing number of directions was the result of poor build quality and the lack of quality control by Dura. Dura's failure to comply with directions hampered the progress of the project. An inordinate number of requests for information and instructions on the project were due to Dura's failure to study diligently the documentation, drawings, and specifications. As an experienced builder, Dura ought to have been proactive in resolving issues, yet its attitude had been adversarial. Mr Pozzebon told the meeting he had no confidence in Dura's general capacity to comply with directions and did not demonstrate a genuine desire to comply expeditiously. Mr Pozzebon did not believe that Dura would be able to perform the remainder of the contract to deliver a project that satisfied the contractual specifications or that Dura's evident adversarial attitude would become collaborative.

558 The report from Mr Gairns was also discussed and considered to be largely unhelpful. It was agreed that Dura had failed to show reasonable cause in connection with the directions notice and the meeting turned to examine the expedition notice.

559 Mr Pozzebon had also considered Dura's materials in response to the expedition notice. Dura's EOT register suggested delays of 714 days, with many of these alleged delays not submitted for assessment. Mr Pozzebon had assessed each submitted EOT claim and he confirmed that the adjusted date of practical completion, 18 October 2006, was the correct assessment. Although Dura had increased the labour force on the site after receiving the notices,[100] Mr Pozzebon did not consider there was sufficient labour on site to complete the works by the date of practical completion. This observation was necessarily impressionistic as Dura had not submitted a further construction program when showing cause. All present at the meeting understood the history of the superintendent's attempts to obtain the program in electronic format.

560 The lack of a proper, effective construction program was not merely casting serious doubt as to the validity and credibility of the EOT claims, it explained Dura's lack of orderly progress with the works and with attending to rectifications. Dura had received a generous extension of time because of latent ground conditions early in the project yet recent developments, such as the glass louvres, demonstrated a lack of proper planning. Mr Pozzebon was unaware of any reasonable basis upon which Dura would be entitled to further extensions of time beyond those already assessed, which he believed had been completed on a fair and reasonable basis. In his view, there was no prospect that Dura would achieve practical completion on or before 18 October 2006 and that that fact had been clear since March 2006. Potentially, practical completion might not be achieved until May 2007.

561 Mr Pozzebon commented to the meeting that the assessments of cash flow by WT Partnership suggested that the workforce during the preceding six months was at half of the level necessary to finish the project on time. To the suggestion in Dura's show cause material that it was entitled to what was effectively four years of extra time to build the project, Mr Pozzebon noted that Dura had not offered, when sought, any detailed explanation of the delays they asserted or demonstrated any attempt to mitigate potential delays.

562 In the general discussion about delays, Mr Chan suggested many requests for information from Dura were at the last minute, indicative of poor planning and co-ordination. Dura's ongoing refusal to provide its construction program in electronic format influenced all present at the meeting. Mr Chu was reminded of the views that had been expressed by Knowles and TBH. Mr Pozzebon suggested that TBH's views were to be preferred. Because Dura had not reasonably mitigated delays nor demonstrated any intention to mitigate delays and had not, in Mr Pozzebon's view, proceeded with due expedition those present at the meeting agreed that Dura had not shown reasonable cause in relation to this notice.

563 Mr Pozzebon said that the decision to take the works out of Dura's hands was Hue's decision and his recommendation. Mr Chan agreed. Mr Chu, Ms Tan, and Mr Wong accepted this recommendation, expressing their agreement that it was the appropriate course. They considered that Dura had failed to show reasonable cause that Hue should not exercise its right to take the work out of Dura's hands or to terminate the contract and that it was reasonable for Hue to now exercise its rights. They decided that Hue would exercise its right to take the work out of Dura's hands principally because of:

• the serious lack of quality control in the construction;
• the added time and expense involved in co-ordinating consultants without whose work many aspects of the poor quality construction would not have been identified or rectified;
• the ongoing lack of co-ordination, administrative support and communications;
• concerns that the issues surrounding the scaffolding provisional sum involved seriously questionable conduct; and,
• the prospect that the project might not reach practical completion until well into 2007.

564 The contract does not spell out how a principal evaluates cause shown. Clause 44.4 permits the principal to exercise a right if the contractor fails to show reasonable cause by the time specified in the notice. In order to act under cl 44.4, the principal must first be satisfied that the contractor has failed to show reasonable cause. The principal's opportunity to exercise rights under cl 44.4 is postponed in the terms described in the clause. Exercise of the contemplated rights under the clause can fundamentally affect relations between the contracting parties.

565 From these characteristics of the contractual language, it follows that the principal must, as part of the process of determining whether to exercise a right referred to in the clause, and, if so, which right, take into account, or give proper consideration to, cause shown in response to a notice. The principle that applies is that where a contracting party is constrained from acting in a particular way until the opposite party discharges an obligation, or has the benefit of a process, an implied obligation may be imposed upon that party correlative to the express obligation or process.

566 What then is the extent of the obligation upon the principal to take into account, or give proper consideration to, the contractor's response showing cause? Dura submits that the principal must act reasonably, as I have earlier set out when considering the requirements of a valid notice. The power to act under cl 44.4 falls within the second identified category in Tote Tasmania. Hue was required to determine, honestly, whether the contractor had failed to show reasonable cause why the principal should not exercise a right referred to in cl 44.4. A court should be satisfied that the principal has made an honest decision in good faith about that matter enabling it to exercise the contractual rights in its favour provided by the clause. It is not a relevant consideration for a court that the principal's decision serves only its interests or that the court considers an alternative decision on the part of the principal to have been reasonably open.[101]

567 On the findings that I have expressed above, I am satisfied that Hue acted reasonably in the relevant sense. It made an honest and careful determination that Dura had failed to show reasonable cause. I find that when Hue gave notice to Dura taking out of its hands the whole of the work remaining under the contract, it acted properly in accordance with the rights and obligations arising under cl 44.

568 On 20 September 2006, at 4.05 pm, Hue served on Dura a notice to take over the works pursuant to cl 44.4 of the contract. At about 5.00 pm that day, the site was repossessed, by changing the locks. On 21 September 2006, Dura applied ex parte to VCAT to restrain Hue from acting further on the notice to take over the works. VCAT granted an interim injunction until 6 October 2006 and Dura regained possession of the site. The interim injunction was contested and discharged by VCAT on 19 October 2006. Dura's appeal to this court failed. On 23 October 2006, Hue recovered possession of the site.

569 Dura then wrote to Hue's solicitors asserting that Hue's conduct was repudiatory and that Dura accepted the repudiation as terminating the contract. The battlelines were drawn for Dura's claim for damages for breach of the contract, alternatively on a quantum meruit, claims that depend on its central contention that Hue repudiated the contract. Hue's counterclaim is for the sum due under a superintendent's cl 44.6 certificate, and other damages, claims that depend on the central contention that Hue validly took the works from Dura when Dura was in substantial breach of the contract, and completed that work. The latter contention involves further analysis of events.

570 Dura's broad principal contention on its claim was that the contract terminated when it accepted Hue's wrongful conduct in repudiating the contract. Dura identified Hue's conduct to be:

(a) serving invalid notices which were oppressive and unreasonable;

(b) locking Dura out of the site on 20-21 September 2006, preventing it from performing work under the contract;

(c) serving an invalid notice on 20 September 2006 purporting to take the work out of Dura's hands;

(d) continuing, after 21 September 2006, to oppose the continuation of the interim injunction granted by VCAT;

(e) opposing Dura's application for leave to appeal against VCAT's decision discharging the interim injunction; and,

(f) taking possession of the site from Dura on 23 October 2006 and engaging Liquid Lines to complete the works.

571 In view of my findings rejecting Dura's contentions in relation to the notices to show cause and the notice of 20 September 2006 taking the work out of Dura's hands, Dura has not established repudiatory conduct by Hue in any of the forms that it alleges. Dura suggested counsel for Hue had conceded that there would be repudiation if I rejected Hue's entitlement to act as it did under the contract. There was a dispute whether Hue made such concession, but in light of my findings, any concession does not become relevant.

572 In case a different view might later be taken of the validity of the notices, I will say a little more. The Court of Appeal recently considered, in R & A Cab Co Pty Ltd v Kotzman,[102] what might constitute repudiatory conduct. The general rule is that a wrongful termination of the performance of a contract constitutes repudiation.[103] For the purposes of this discussion, if Hue in fact had no right to serve the cl 44.4 notice on 20 September 2006 taking the works out of Dura's hands, there was a wrongful termination of Dura's performance of the contract. Dura asserts common law rights. It does not point to any contractual entitlement of the contractor to terminate the contract in the circumstances. To establish effective termination, Dura must show that it accepted the repudiation, that is, that it elected to terminate the further performance of the contract consequent upon the repudiatory conduct of the principal.

573 Hue contended that there was no repudiation. Its notice adopting the option under cl 44.4(a), irrespective of whether Dura was validly able to serve it, was conduct confirming the continuance of the contract. In a strict sense that submission is correct, but it misses the point. The plain effect of any decision whether taken under cl 44.4(a) or cl 44.4(b) is to terminate the future performance of the contract works by the contractor. If that decision cannot be justified, it is sufficient repudiatory conduct. There is no valid distinction, for termination by acceptance of repudiation at common law, between wrongfully taking the work from the contractor and wrongful termination the contract.

574 Had I formed a different view, that Hue was not entitled to act as it did, I would have accepted that there had been repudiatory conduct and that Dura terminated the contract by accepting the repudiation by its letter of 23 October 2006.

575 When the principal takes work out of the hands of the contractor, cl 44.5 governs the procedure that applies. The principal may complete that work. There are other provisions dealing with the possession and use of construction or plant and the benefit of agreements for the manufacture or supply of goods and equipment for the purpose of performing any work for the purposes of the contract, issues that do not arise. However, the work that Hue completed after serving the notice was not 'that work'. The scope of works undertaken by Liquid Lines was varied, a process referred to during the trial as enhancement. Because the contract does not contemplate that the principal will complete any other or different work from that taken out of the hands of the contractor, the onus lies upon Hue to separate the cost of the enhancements from its claim against Dura.

576 Clause 44 provides that on completion of the work taken out of the hands of the contractor, the superintendent works out the final financial adjustment and issues a 'cost to complete' certificate. That is what occurred and Hue seeks primarily to recover on the superintendent's cl 44.6 certificate.

44.6 Adjustment on Completion of the Work Taken Out of Hands of Contractor

When work taken out of the hands of the Contractor under clause 44.4(a) is completed the Superintendent shall ascertain the cost incurred by the Principal in completing the work and shall issue a certificate to the Principal and the Contractor certifying:

(a) the amount of that cost and setting out the calculations employed to arrive at that cost;

(b) the amount which would otherwise have been paid to the Contractor if the work had been completed by the Contractor;

(c) the difference between (a) and (b).

If the cost incurred by the Principal is greater than the amount which would have been paid to the Contractor if the work had been completed by the Contractor, the difference shall be a debt due from the Contractor to the Principal. If the cost incurred by the Principal is less than the amount that would have been paid to the Contractor if the work had been completed by the Contractor, the difference shall be a debt due to the Contractor from the Principal.

If the Contractor is indebted to the Principal, the Principal may retain Constructional Plant or other things taken under clause 44.5 until the debt is satisfied. If after reasonable notice, the Contractor fails to pay the debt, the Principal may sell the Constructional Plant or other things and apply the proceeds to the satisfaction of the debt and the costs of sale. Any excess shall be paid to the Contractor.

578 During the period from 21 September 2006 until 23 October 2006 when Dura remained on site by virtue of an interim injunction, Hue considered that Dura was covering up uncorrected defects by installing plasterboard, without permitting proper inspection. In particular, during that period, Dura was restricting Hue's access to the site in various ways: by requiring 48 hours written notice for entry onto the site, and by removing scaffolding to areas where access was required to inspect whether rectification works had been performed as directed. Moreover, Dura appeared to be plastering rapidly, in the context of the history between the parties about programming, due expedition and the date for practical completion.

579 Ultimately a major issue developed over the finishes achieved with plasterboard that was separate to any issue of covered over defects, but Hue reasonably, having regard to the history of the project, was concerned about the standard that had then been achieved. Immediately after taking over the works on 23 October 2006, Mr Chu instructed Messrs Wong, Ken Alexander, and Chan to undertake a detailed audit of Dura's work to identify whether the works were in accordance with the contract specifications and drawings. Between 26 October and 23 November 2006, a visual audit was undertaken, meaning that plasterboard was not removed and underlying works were only inspected where openings allowed access.

580 Mr Chu summarised his conclusions from his own observations of the state of the works left by Dura, his discussions with consultants and the project control group and his review of the documents, particularly the visual audit report. He said:

(a) in every unit, there were problems with plasterboard walls not being in accordance with specifications in terms of flatness, squareness, and plumb. This was in part because the specified fixings had not been used to install the plasterboard;

(b) the specified ceiling suspension system had not been installed in all of the units;

(c) the problems with the plasterboard and surrounding work indicated that there were underlying problems including movement, noise and vibration;

(d) inspection of works underlying the plasterboard, where possible, revealed problems with services works. For example, electrical wires were not fixed to catenary wires which meant that the wires drooped onto the ceiling plasterboard;

(e) CS cavity sliders had not been installed in the works;

(f) the openings of the unit entry doors on levels 2 and 3 had not been rectified to 1000mm openings;

(g) areas of the concrete slab on level 4 had been scabbled away and not rectified; and

(h) the underside of the concrete slab ceilings of the balconies did not have a class 2 finish.

581 Mr Chu considered these obvious visual defects in the plasterboard would impart an immediate 'sub-standard' impression of the quality of the development that would detract from the achievable prices for the units on sale. Mr Pozzebon advised Mr Chu that with unrectified systemic defects in the services works in breach of the BCA, an occupancy permit might not issue.

582 Mr Chu had also instructed the structural engineer and the services engineers to inspect and report non-compliance with the specifications and drawings and he received and considered these reports. To Mr Chu it became apparent that some opening up, or partial demolition, of the works would be required not only to assess the need for rectification but also in order to rectify the works. The extent of demolition required was not immediately apparent.

583 Hue engaged a project manager, Mr Peter Clack of P.A.C Construction Consultants to act as Hue's representative for the project, supervise site activities, liaise with a new builder, and manage the costs to complete the works. Mr Clack also monitored completion of the project financially, reporting to Hue, and assessing the contractors' progress claims and variations for the superintendent.

584 One issue that demanded Mr Clack's immediate attention was the need to settle up with subcontractors and deal with the union to enable the works to continue. Dura denied Hue access to subcontractor records and retained retention sums against subcontractors, complicating this task. The subcontractors were refusing to return to work unless paid. Eighteen Dura subcontractors submitted claims for outstanding money, and Hue paid $628,267.53 in total to settle up the claims of those subcontractors. Further sums were paid to four subcontractors as retention monies. Mr Clack liaised with Dura's subcontractors, ascertained the scope and value of their work, as and when it was completed, settled with them and agreed and arranged for payment of outstanding amounts due. I am satisfied that the process Mr Clack undertook to settle these claims was fair and reasonable. The assessment was not mechanical, and in exercising his judgment based on his experience and training, Mr Clack reviewed:

(d) the reasonableness of the claims assessed against what Mr Clack considered the value of the actual works which had been carried out (to assess whether Mr Clack believed there were any inflated claims);

(e) the amounts which the superintendent had previously assessed and certified;

(f) the variations which had been claimed by Dura's subcontractors, that had not yet been assessed by the superintendent; and

(g) the amounts that Dura had actually paid to the subcontractors before leaving the site.

585 Mr Clack learned of the visual audit of the works, and that Hue had discovered defective and non-compliant work underlying the plasterboard, of unknown extent unless Hue removed plasterboard. Mr Clack advised Hue that in these circumstances the scope of the completed works would not be clear, and was likely to lead to unexpected increases in costs. It was likely to be cheaper in some circumstances to strip materials out and redo the work. In other cases, items like joinery, or bathtubs, might be reusable. Further, the completion works could not proceed over defective and non-compliant works beneath. In this respect, Mr Clack added his voice to the concerns felt by Mr Chu and the advice given to Hue by the superintendent and other consultants.

586 Hue formed a project control group, run by Mr Clack, which included representatives of Hue, Liquid Lines, the architects, and Mr Pozzebon as superintendent. The function of the group was to:

(a) identify all outstanding issues that needed to be resolved in order to re-commence the works;

(b) determine how to rectify the defective works; and

(c) develop a plan to complete the project.

587 In November and December 2006, Mr Chu discussed the need to open up or partly demolish the works with the project control group. The project control group advised, and Hue accepted that:

• the plasterboard defects were systemic in nature. The only way to rectify the problems was to re-do the plasterboard;
• the defects in services works underlying the plasterboard may be widespread and systemic;
• the most cost effective and efficient manner to proceed to rectify any defects that existed beneath the plasterboard would be to remove plasterboard walls to allow identification and access to perform rectification works;
• the cost to complete the works would be lower if Hue could provide subcontractors with a clear and complete scope of the works required and that could only be provided if the nature and true extent of defects was determined before recommencement of the works.

The project control group's advice about such matters was appropriate and Hue was entitled, as it did, to accept that advice.

588 Mr Chu then consulted with Ms Chenghan Tan and decided to direct the removal of the plasterboard incrementally, allowing consultants to inspect the works revealed and for the scope of demolition works to be reviewed. Hue also determined that if the consultants considered the works beneath the plasterboard were defective in a systemic way, those works would be rectified. The initial scope of the demolition works was determined by about mid-January 2007 and a contractor then commenced stripping out the plasterboard.

589 Dura asserted at trial that the consequences of the opening up of the works were significantly understated. The demolition had been 'brutal' and there were numerous types of defects that were the consequence of that demolition rather than merely exposed as a pre-existing condition. I have dealt with that assertion earlier when discussing defects. Dura did not establish that the opening up of the works was 'brutal'. I am satisfied that Mr Chu had no motive of the sort Dura would attribute and, interested in containing costs, Hue proceeded carefully, only stripping back what was necessary and, subject to the separate issue of the enhancements, salvaging what could be used again when the construction was completed. I reject Dura's assertion that Hue's opening up of the works damaged good work done by Dura that did not require rectification.

590 Mr Chu attended the site almost daily to observe the opening up of the works. He particularly observed plasterboard being removed carefully and methodically in stages, as he had requested, to permit the assessment of services works and the structures behind the plasterboard by his consultants. He observed that measures were taken to protect fixtures and fittings from damage in the plasterboard removal process. Although the careful nature of the stripping out was strongly challenged in cross examination, I accept that it was done carefully, that being evident from the photos taken at the time. I also accept that Mr Chu saw that it was done carefully. His financial motivation was to ensure protection of the remaining work and that re-useable items and materials were preserved.

591 Mr Chu learned from his observations and the reports he received from Hue's employees and consultants throughout the opening up of the works that:

• airconditioning refrigerant pipes were not fully insulated, revealing exposed copper pipe, which would result in water condensation onto ceilings that would damage the plasterboard; and,
• airconditioning condensate pipes were installed without proper falls to drain;

(b) in respect of electrical works, the majority of the cabling was unsecured to the ceiling slab and found not to comply with contract specifications and the BCA. This defect was, to some extent, found in all units;

(c) in multiple instances there were unsealed penetrations in fire rated walls and missing fire collars to slab penetrations, which could mean that an occupancy permit would not be issued;

(d) in many areas, the specified resilient mounts for airconditioner fan coil units had not been installed; and,

(e) in every unit, a ceiling exhaust fan had not been installed beneath or behind plasterboard ceilings. Mr Chu was told that it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible for Dura to install the ceiling exhaust fan without removing the ceiling and that this defect would prevent issue of an occupancy permit.

By 2 February 2007 Mr Chu had been told by Mr Tompkins, of Wood & Grieve, that all electrical and communications cabling (other than incoming power, communications, fire and mechanical circuits) needed to be stripped out and replaced. By mid-February 2007 the services and structural engineers had inspected the partially stripped out works. Their unanimous advice to Mr Chu was that systemic defects were present that breached the contract specification or the BCA, threatened the issue of an occupancy permit for the units, were likely to reduce the sales return from the units, and likely to lead to significant long-term maintenance issues.

592 It was at this point in the opening up of the works that Mr Chu, after consulting with Messrs Clack, Pozzebon, Trent Alexander and Ms Chenghan Tan, decided to direct substantial opening up and demolition of Dura's works, including the services works, joinery, the plasterboard sub-frame for the ceiling and metal studs in the walls. The ceiling sub-frames for plasterboard would be removed to allow a ceiling installed to the correct height and with the specified mounting system. Metal studs behind plasterboard walls were removed for the absence of resilient mounts, which could not be retrofitted. In the bathrooms and bedrooms, many walls had not been correctly set out.

593 Joinery was to be carefully removed for re-use but multiple problems were then discovered that precluded the cost-effective use of the salvaged joinery. These problems included unnecessary penetrations drilled into joinery items, many items that had been installed prior to tiling and plastering of adjacent walls, the units were either damaged or of incorrect dimensions for re-fitting into the works, and that joinery would need to be modified to fit newly (and correctly) constructed walls. In the result, Hue only salvaged for review and possible re-use island benches, vanity units and other undamaged joinery. This presented an opportunity to consider more 'up-market' joinery to improve value on sale. Mr Chu agreed the enhancement works incorporated, in part, rectification works but rejected the cross-examiner's suggestion he had decided to go ahead with the enhancement works prior to investigating the underlying works, or that he opened up the works in order to justify the enhancement works at the same time as the later discovered defect rectification. Mr Chu approached his decisions about rectification of the works with advice from Mr Clack, Mr Trent Alexander, and Mr Chan, attempting to identify the most cost effective and aesthetically satisfactory options available.

594 Liquid Lines completed the construction project. The works reached practical completion on 22 January 2008. Its contract incorporated the drawings that had formed part of Dura's contract, as revised while Dura was carrying out the works, with unit 29 specifically excluded. It also incorporated a separate bundle of drawings detailing enhancements that had not formed part of the scope of Dura's contract.

595 Mr Clack prepared an assessment of the costs incurred on the project to assist the superintendent complete the certificate required under cl 44.6. On 13 May 2008, Mr Pozzebon issued a final certificate to Dura certifying $4,457,308 including GST as payable by Dura to Hue for completion and rectification of the contract works. This final certificate is based on, and attaches, the cost to complete report dated 5 May 2008 prepared by Mr Clack.

596 Dura challenged Mr Clack's cost to complete report. One of Mr Clack's tasks on site was to assess Liquid Lines' payment and variation claims, and maintain an ongoing assessment of the construction costs. By this process, he compiled a record and from it, the report was developed. Drawing on over 30 years' experience, Mr Clack based his assessment of the total costs incurred on invoices and other documents, submitted by Liquid Lines, and assessed at the time. In due course I will return to the assumption evident in this approach that the total cost to the principal in completing the works is ascertained from such invoices and other documents. Dura did not contend that Mr Clack's approach was, in this respect, in error. Mr Clack allocated the total costs he ascertained to three categories: the costs of rectification, the costs of the enhancements, and the costs to complete the works under the contract with Dura.

597 Mr Clack excluded from the known total costs the enhancement costs and the assessed costs of completing the works, leaving the balance of the total costs necessarily attributable to rectification coats. The rectification costs included the cost of opening up the works, demolition of defective and non-compliant works, and demolition or removal of works to facilitate the rectification of defective underlying works, the necessary rectification of Dura's works, and the reinstatement of demolished works. The methodology for ascertaining the costs to complete the works excluded the enhancements costs and avoided any double counting. Mr Clack assessed the total costs incurred in completing the project after taking over the works, by Hue at $6,868,002 a figure not disputed by Dura. He apportioned the total cost as follows:

• $951,267 to enhancement works;
• $3,680,775 to rectification works; and
• $2,235,960 to contract completion works.

598 Dura challenged this allocation. Dura's first challenge to this process was that it failed to sufficiently identify the costs of particular enhancements and rectification works. Mr Clack's allocation of the total costs between rectification, costs to complete, and enhancements could not therefore be checked. A global assessment was impermissible and an item by item assessment of costs was necessary. Dura has never sought to dispute, under cl 47 of the contract or specifically by its pleading, the sum certified by the superintendent in the final certificate. Dura did not offer any evidence of an item based assessment of the costs to complete. Further, the challenge to the certificate appears to be counsel's point. Mr Faifer, in a detailed response to Mr Clack's assessment, does not admit to, or even complain about, any difficulties in identifying or understanding the items to which the cost categories relate.

599 All Mr Faifer said was that without further documentation, which he identified as invoices from Liquid Lines and its suppliers and sub contractors, he could not confirm the accuracy of Mr Clack's apportionments. Mr Faifer suggested the amounts applied to each category ought to be checked for items scheduled in the rectification category that belong in the original contracted works or in the enhancements columns. The files containing the invoices on which Mr Clack's report is based were discovered and available to Dura. Mr Faifer was not provided with these invoices and could neither confirm nor disprove the cost allocations in Mr Clack's Cost to Complete Report.

600 Mr Clack described his methodology as proceeding on 'an elemental basis', meaning costs are allocated to particular elements of the project. By one example, Mr Clack explained that all of the costs involved with the installation of an interior door are allocated to that element of the building, despite the fact that numerous trade groups may have been involved in its construction. This contrasts with a possible alternative methodology for producing reports for like uses, which is to simply list costs by trade. Mr Clack produced the report in an elemental manner as there was no complete scope of works. The contractor's payment claims for works performed were progressively entered in to the record, from invoices submitted by Liquid Lines and their subcontractors. Mr Clack compared each submitted invoice against the applicable contractual terms, to ascertain what portion of the contracted works was invoiced. Mr Clack then inspected the works to ensure that the invoiced work was actually completed. When satisfied, Mr Clack recommended certification and payment to the superintendent. For variation claims, Mr Clack reviewed the claim and its supporting documents, forming a preliminary view that he discussed with the superintendent, seeking a consensus on the claim. If not persuaded the claim was legitimate, Mr Clack advised its rejection to the superintendent; otherwise, he assessed the fair and reasonable value of the variation and recommended payment. Mr Clack then updated his record with the superintendent's certified figures.

601 As invoices were commonly submitted on a trade-by-trade base, by this methodology, Mr Clack made a judgment when he divided each invoice up amongst the elements that it covered, i.e. an invoice by a painter could have been divided between 'internal doors', and 'wall finishes'. In his final report, he further sorted the elements in to completion works, rectification works, and enhancements.

602 Mr Chu decided to enhance the design as the project had been in the marketplace for so long. Mr Chan prepared a separate set of architectural drawings, showing the changes or enhancements to the design that Dura was to build, so that Liquid Lines could easily identify and accurately price such enhancements. However, there were issues of overlap. Some enhancements were in elements of the project where Dura's work required rectification. Other enhancement work only affected the uncompleted works. Mr Chu anticipated the enhancements would affect the superintendent's task of ascertaining and certifying the costs of completing the works taken off Dura. Mr Chu explained that Hue considered changes to the design where there was no defect in the works as built by Dura to be enhancements to the design, the costs of which were excluded. Where defect rectification works overlapped with enhancement works, the cost to Hue achieved more than just defect rectification, Mr Chu decided that Hue would pay that part of the cost relating to enhancement and he instructed Mr Clack, Mr Chan and Mr Pozzebon accordingly.

603 The unsatisfactorily finished render provide an example of Hue's methodology. The render was not beyond repair, but the cost to Hue of rectification, assessed by Mr Thomas at $216,000 would have been significantly less had Dura actually rectified its defective works. However, Hue chose to enhance the facade of the building in a manner that obviated the need to remediate the render and simultaneously rectified other problems. The cost of the enhancement, by timber cladding, exceeded the estimated cost of repair. However, Hue's claim from Dura is limited to the estimated cost of rectification, not the cost of the cladding.

604 The major enhancements were identified by Mr Chu to be:

(a) timber cladding over all external rendered blockwork;

(b) revised Unit Type H master bedroom layout;

(c) revised bathtubs for Unit Type A and H;

(d) revised wall and kitchen joinery for Unit Type A and H;

(e) revised pedestrian ramp and walkway;

(f) revised ground floor townhouse privacy fence;

(g) balcony gables;

(h) change of recessed down lights to track mounted lights;

(i) change of sliding doors to pivot doors; and

(j) change of doorframe materials.

605 As I have noted, Dura called Mr Faifer, a quantity surveyor, to give expert evidence about the enhancement costs and the cl 44.6 certificate. His evidence is rejected, but would not have been preferred to that of Mr Clack, if admitted. Dura cross-examined both Mr Chu and Mr Clack about enhancements. Mr Clack identified enhancements by reference to the set of construction drawings, current at 23 October 2006, provided by Mr Chan. Works that were not part of Dura's works were characterised as enhancements and assessed as such from the Liquid Lines invoices. Mr Clack explained that if uncertain of the status of any item or activity, particularly whether it was enhancement or rectification, he sought further clarification from Mr Chu or Mr Chan. I have elsewhere expressed my finding accepting Mr Chu's evidence of enhancements and Hue's methodology for allocating expenses paid to Liquid Lines to either rectification or enhancement.

606 Mr Clack identified the defective works by reference to the reports from Wood & Grieve Engineers, the visual audit by Mr Wong and Mr Alexander in December 2006 and the underlying works audit in May 2007 following the opening up of the work. Rectification costs were ascertained as I have explained with a judgment made about what parts of some invoices related to enhancements and what parts related to rectification costs. Mr Clack acknowledged that, when compiling the ongoing record by his chosen methodology, it was not possible to calculate rectification cost on a defect item basis and the rectification costs section of his report is not itemised to specific defective items. For example, Mr Clack did not assess the cost of rectifying a defective services penetration in the kitchen in unit 17 separately from the cost of rectifying plaster that did not meet contractual tolerances in the kitchen in unit 17. Dura challenged the assessment on this basis, but before explaining Dura's contentions, I will say a little more about Mr Clack's methodology.

607 Initially, Mr Clack assessed the cost to complete to be $2,240,236 and he then broke that down in to elements as I have noted. This was, he said, before Hue knew the extent of defects. Later to assist in compiling the cl 44.6 certificate, Mr Clack had to ascertain the enhancement costs and what was a rectification cost. Mr Clack considered that determining enhancement costs was, in the manner I have described, straight forward, but determining the exact cost of a defect was more difficult. Costing rectification work on an item by item basis was a complex, expensive, and time consuming task that was, in his view, unwarranted. Rather, once the costs of enhancements and completion of the works were ascertained and deducted from the total costs, the figure that remained over represented rectification costs. As I have explained, each of the ascertained costs categories was specifically and objectively ascertainable, although the process required Mr Clack to exercise his judgment in making allocations to the categories and the elements.

608 The figure remaining over, representing the rectification costs, included the costs of demolition of defective works, reinstatement of demolished works and the subsequent rectification works. The assessment was therefore a global one, although Mr Clack noted that the costs of some specific rectification work was identifiable. Mr Clack identified a further difficulty. As with the interaction between rectification and enhancement, it was not always possible to allocate specific invoices between rectification costs and specific elements of the completion works. For example, Mr Clack explained that an invoice for plasterwork may have involved the following issues: a defect in the plasterboard requiring its removal and reconstruction (rectification costs) may have uncovered electrical wiring defects (further rectification costs), but allowed for the installation of an enhanced joinery unit (a completion/enhancement cost). If the original joinery unit was defective, the cost allocation becomes more complex. The cost of the enhanced joinery was readily allocated between completion and enhancement categories, but the cost of the plasterboard removal could not readily be assigned to one rectified defect or even one element of the project or cost category. Mr Clack's judgment was that there were many such instances affecting his task, which warranted his adoption of a methodology that avoided such uncertainty.

609 Dura contended that the superintendent did not compile the costs to complete certificate in accordance with cl 44.6 because, inter alia, the superintendent wrongly included, or incorrectly valued, the cost of items of defective work. If an alternative method of cost management had been adopted by Hue after 23 October 2006, the costs of rectification could have been identified. Dura submitted there was no practical reason why the actual costs of rectification and enhancement could not have been identified with particularity, if done contemporaneously with the works and calculated simply on an item by item basis. Mr Clack's approach was Hue's choice, relevant to its election whether it relied on a cl 44.6 certificate, which required it to establish the contractual criteria for such a certificate or whether it pursued its common law remedy for damages, which are assessed on criteria other that those relevant for a calculation pursuant to a contractual formula. Dura contended a cl 44.6 certificate that creates a contractual debt, as the net result of the necessary calculations, requires precision that is absent from a global calculation. Dura contended that cl 44.6 did not permit a calculation based upon a multiplicity of elements, many based on subjective estimates by someone other than the superintendent.

610 Dura contended that Mr Clack made an 'arbitrary split', when he allocated a percentage of an invoice to enhancements and allocated a percentage to rectification or the costs to complete. Dura contended that this 'arbitrary split' is not the cost accounting process required by cl 44.6. Mr Clack's methodology did not ascertain cost; it was subjective and could not satisfy an audit. Dura suggested that Mr Clack ought to have adopted a costing methodology based on a comparison of as built drawings with the 23 October 2006 set of construction drawings. Dura contended Mr Clack's methodology understated enhancement costs and the consequence was that part of such costs was included in Mr Clack's assessment of completion costs.

611 There are several issues. I reject the characterisation of Mr Clack's allocations as 'arbitrary'. Mr Clack applied a methodology in determining percentage allocations. It was not arbitrary. He explained his methodology, the suitability of which was unchallenged by Mr Faifer, whose concerns were directed elsewhere. Dura did not specifically direct evidence to the theory and practice of cost accounting in such circumstances. Counsel's reference to audit processes is irrelevant and probably misconceived.

612 I reject Dura's assertion that all defects should have been individually costed, and Hue should have used an alternative method of cost management. It is not for the contract breaker to dictate, beyond the terms of the bargain that continue in force, how the innocent party responds to its breach. Hue conceded that of necessity its claim in respect of rectification costs was global. Hue offered various examples of the impracticality of this contention, some of which I have noted. Another example was that it is not possible to separate out the cost of rectification of a defective plumbing line behind a plasterboard wall from the removal of the substandard joinery in front of the wall, the removal of a defectively erected or located wall and skirting, the removal of the studs which may have been wrongly aligned and the replacement of the studs, plasterboard, skirting, the repainting and the reconstructing of the joinery to fit the realigned plasterboard wall. Hue contended in this context that proof of damage does not necessarily require precise calculation or evaluation. As Toohey J said in Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd:[104]

However, to say as a general proposition that it is for the plaintiff to prove his damages is not to say that, in some instances, damage may not be inferred or presumed: see McGregor on Damages para 1785 in relation to damages in tort. Nor is it to fail to recognise that the quantification of damages is "in many cases no more than an approximation lacking in mathematical or economic accuracy or sufficiency" (Pennant Hills Restaurants, at CLR 636) or even that the assessment of damages "does sometimes, of necessity, involve what is guess work rather than estimation": Jones v Schiffmann [1971] HCA 52; (1971) 124 CLR 303 at 308. It is now almost a century since Bowen LJ said in Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 524 at 532-3: As much certainty and particularity must be insisted on ... in ... proof of damage, as is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances and to the nature of the acts themselves by which the damage is done. To insist upon less would be to relax old and intelligible principles. To insist upon more would be the vainest pedantry.

613 Dura contended that John Holland Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner RJ Brown Pty Ltd[105] supported its criticism of global assessment methodology. That case concerned a 'design engineer's' application to strike out a contractor's statement of claim seeking damages for breach of contract, breach of duty of care, negligent misstatement, and deceptive and misleading conduct. The pleaded claim was a global claim in the sense that the pleading did not attribute any specific loss to a specific breach of duty. Pleading the claim in that way raised issues about whether the causal link between breach and loss was adequately exposed. Noting that the cases will permit this form of pleading where it is impractical to disentangle that part of the loss which is attributable to each head of the claim, and this situation has not been brought about by delay or other conduct of the claimant, the court characterised the damages claim being advanced by the pleading as a total cost claim. Byrne J approached the claim with a great deal of caution, particularly because, in managed lists, the opportunity is available to consider the demand made of the cross-examiner to expose the flaws hidden in such global claims. The purposes of case management are not advanced. The court had in particular contemplation the unstated assumption of the global pleading that breaches of contract were the material cause of all of the contractor's costs overrun and the time and resources likely to be expended in examining that assumption.

614 This decision does not assist Dura's argument. The issue is the ascertainment of costs by a contractual process, not causation of damage by breach. The process under consideration is a certification exercise by a superintendent, not an assessment of common law damages. It is no answer to a contractual process directed to ascertaining the total costs, and the debt due, on completion of the contract with to identify issues relevant to proof of a common law damages claim. Here, the three categories for the certification process do not disguise or assume contentious causation issues. Broadly, the issue is whether the superintendent followed the contractual process. Although the court in Kvaerner did not reject use of global claim methodology in appropriate circumstances on a damages assessment, the decision says little that assists Dura's contention in the present circumstances, because of the different nature of the assessment processes under consideration.

615 Although it is convenient for Dura to fashion an argument around a concept of individual defect based cost assessment because Hue had not proved costs on this basis and equally convenient for Hue to refer to common law principle applying to proof of damages, neither submission greatly assists. The language of cl 44.6 identifies the correct approach to certification of the debt due. The clause does not direct a judicial assessment of damages. It does not require an audit. It does not preclude a global approach. The superintendent's primary obligation is to 'ascertain' identified categories of costs to certify the costs incurred by the principal in completing the works. The consequences for the contractor or the principal then follow the certificate.

616 To 'ascertain' is to determine, or more specifically, to find out by trial, examination, or experiment, what the costs are. Cost accounting in the construction industry is not an exact science. Mr Clack's qualifications and experience equip him to make a judgment about the appropriate methodology in the circumstances of this project. His education, training, and substantial experience are in quantity surveying, cost management, and project management. The practice of quantity surveying is the estimation and measurement of the quantities of materials and labour, and its cost, for the construction of a building. Quantity surveyors are recognised and accepted by courts[106] as having a skills set that relate to contracts and costs, particularly costs estimation and control, on construction projects. Professional quantity surveyors, also known as construction economists or costs managers, employ skills across a range of activities that may include cost planning, value engineering, value management, feasibility studies, cost benefit analysis, life-cycle costing, tendering, valuation, change control, dispute resolution, claims management, project management cost estimation and costs monitoring. Quantity surveyors are recognised as possessing skills in interpretation of contract documents, particularly measuring quantities from drawings, sketches and specifications prepared by architects and engineers, in order to prepare tenders or contract documents, works valuation, project costs management, viability assessment and project management. Mr Clack was a member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors for 19 years until 2004 and is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors. These organisations are professional standards bodies that supervise or regulate standards of professional excellence.

617 There is nothing in the evidence or in the words of the clause that require Hue to adopt a process of costs management that suits Dura or that results in the assessment of rectification costs on an individual basis, such as may occur in disputes concerning domestic renovation and the like. Mr Clack's methodology is appropriate in the circumstances of this project and is consistent with the practices of quantity surveyors. The process of determination of the costs to complete the works involves judgments, allocations of expenses to categories. This is unexceptional as an accounting practice, particularly where the practice is based on industry experience or processes. It is pertinent to note that while Mr Faifer commented that he had not the opportunity to examine the documents on which Mr Clack compiled his report, he did not take issue with the methodology that was plainly evident from the report.

618 For these reasons, I reject Dura's criticism that Mr Clack's assessments were an 'arbitrary split'. I am satisfied that Mr Clack exercised a judgment based on his examination of documents and on his inquiries of the owner and the architect when he allocated costs to different categories. Further, I accept that a process of allocation of costs, on a different basis to that chosen by the supplier, to suit the purposes of the payer is a judgment commonly made in cost management and one which Mr Clack was qualified by his specialised knowledge to make.

Challenging the costs to complete certificate

619 There is a further, wider issue. Dura contended that some costs of enhancements had been, in error, included in the costs to complete certificate. For the reason that enhancement costs are not costs of Dura's work under the contract and cannot be the costs incurred in completing that work when taken out of the contractor's hands, the certificate is erroneous, not calculated in accordance with cl 44.6. Dura submitted that the costs to complete certificate is not final and binding and can be challenged for such error, and that it should be struck down. In such circumstances, Hue would be confined to common law remedies that it has chosen not to pursue.

620 To challenge the costs to complete certificate for error, as not final and binding, Dura contended that:

(a) there were no express terms of the contract preventing challenge to a certificate under cl 44.6;

(b) no term of the contract provided that any certificate was conclusive. Unlike a cl 44.6 certificate, certificates under cl 42.8 expressly imposes a time limit to serve a notice of dispute, otherwise the notice becomes prima facie evidence;

(c) a challenge to a certificate is not precluded by the fact that it creates a liquidated contractual debt;

(d) although cl 46.2(b) imposes a time restriction in disputing a superintendent's direction, which includes a certificate, that time restriction is conditioned on the superintendent serving a notice in writing on each party that if a party wishes to dispute the certificate then that party is required to do so under cl 47 and the superintendent did not serve such a notice;

(e) a notice of dispute is not required where the court is seized of the dispute. There is no requirement to issue a notice of dispute once the court proceedings have commenced.

621 Whether a certification is final and binding is a matter of contractual interpretation. As McHugh JA noted in Legal & General Life of Australia Ltd v A Hudson Pty Ltd: [107]

In my opinion the question whether a valuation is binding upon the parties depends in the first instance upon the terms of the contract, express or implied ... In each case, the critical question must always be: Was the valuation made in accordance with the terms of the contract?

622 When interpreting contracts, courts respect express terms that determinations or certifications are intended to be final and binding, but the language of the contract may not be express. Where there is a want of express language in the contract, the cases in respect of construction and engineering contract certification have identified a dichotomy between determinations calling for a 'discretionary judgment' and those involving a mere 'mechanical exercise'. A court may review for error the latter form of certification but is unlikely to interfere with certifications falling within the former category.

623 The leading decision is that of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in WMC Resources Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd.[108] This decision has been considered in, and supported by, more recent cases such as AGL Victoria Pty Ltd v TXU Networks (Gas) Pty Ltd[109] and Yarraman Pine Pty Ltd v Forestry Plantations Queensland.[110] WMC Resources concerned a mining contract at an open-pit nickel mine at Mt Keith in Western Australia and valuations made by WMC of work executed by Leighton Contractors that constituted variations under the contract between them. By the terms of that contract, WMC had the power to value those variations 'in its sole discretion'. The court was asked to determine whether that power should be interpreted as giving WMC an express right to make a final and binding determination such that an arbitrator had no power to substitute his own valuation for the valuation of WMC.

624 Leaving aside contracts which by express language, or otherwise, preclude review for error, for Ipp J,[111] the question whether a certifying provision should be interpreted as being final and binding turned on whether the determination involved a 'discretionary judgment'. Non-discretionary judgments may be subject to review by a tribunal (whether arbitral or judicial). Non-discretionary certificates are generally based on detailed fixed and objective criteria in the contract as to how the values of amounts to be certified under interim and final certificates are to be determined. Such fixed and objective criteria are usually in the form of detailed schedules of rates or bills of quantities or specifications. These criteria enable the certifier to merely measure an item of work, assess its quality, and apply the rate provided by the contract for that item. In the event that an incorrect value is determined, this will be a breach of contract and a court or arbitrator will have the power to set aside the decision and determine the correct amount.[112] In this sense, Ipp J held that the, 'valuer does not exercise a discretionary judgment in valuing the work. It is a mechanical exercise'[113].

625 Only those determinations that involved a discretionary judgment could be capable of being final and binding. Such valuations are those that may involve making decisions where no fixed or readily available standard criteria exist. There may be several possible methods of assessing value, each giving widely different results, but each being reasonable. Many subsidiary factors relevant to the valuation may be uncertain, many contingencies may have to be taken into account, a wide range for legitimate decision may be open, and opinions may legitimately differ as to virtually all of the relevant issues.[114]

626 The court identified the principles applicable to the review of discretionary valuations by a third party certifier such as a superintendent.[115]

Firstly, by the contract, the parties agree to be bound by a valuation made in terms thereof. Therefore, if the valuation complies with the contract, they are bound thereby. Because of the discretionary nature of the valuation, the contract will not require the valuation to be "correct". There will indeed be no uniquely correct valuation. The valuation will merely have to be within the terms of the contract.

Secondly, a court will not set aside a valuer's determination merely on the ground that it is "incorrect" or that it reveals errors. The determination will only be interfered with if it is not made in terms of the contract; a mere mistake in the valuation will ordinarily not be a departure from the terms of the contract.

The court concluded on the facts before it that the process of valuing variations would require the valuer to take into account a myriad of differing and complex factors that could in no way be considered 'mechanical'.[116] His Honour held, 'in my opinion, [the determination] involves a series of discretionary judgments or, at least, a vast number of decisions having substantially discretionary elements'.[117] Ipp J concluded from the discretionary nature of the express valuation provisions, that the parties intended that determinations under the variations clause would be final and binding.

627 WMC Resources was cited to this court in AGL Victoria Pty Ltd v TXU Networks (Gas) Pty Ltd.[118] In AGL Victoria, AGL owned a gas transmission network and TXU owned a gas distribution network. At the connection points between the transmission and distribution networks, gas meters were installed. Gas meters were also installed at the connection points between the distribution networks and customers. The quantity of gas measured by the meters formed the basis for payment for the consumption of gas and a reconciliation amount was determined between the parties. Over a two-year period, a particular meter was unaccounted for and consequently a significant volume of gas was not invoiced. Once AGL became aware of the problem, it requested VENCorp, which between AGL and TXU was responsible for certifying the reconciliation of the meters, to re-certify the reconciliations to take into account the gas unaccounted for. TXU objected, stating that the earlier calculations by VENCorp were final and binding. Byrne J reviewed the authorities, including WMC Resources and held that the calculations by VENCorp were 'more than a mere mechanical exercise'.[119] Byrne J noted that that the actual amount of unmetered gas may never be known and may be incapable of precise determination. In such a case, the attribution to [a factor in the reconciliation] of any value might always be said to be incorrect. Perhaps VENCorp could never issue an effective reconciliation amount. His Honour concluded that the calculation by VENCorp of the reconciliation amount 'cannot be challenged ... for error of the kind presently disclosed'.[120]

628 The Queensland Court of Appeal in Yarraman Pine Pty Ltd v Forestry Plantations Queensland[121] also followed this approach to judicial review of contractual certification.

629 AS 2124-1992 makes no express requirement that the superintendent's certificate is to be 'final and binding on the parties'. The clause constitutes a certified sum as a debt due to principal or contractor, as the case may be. It is necessary to consider whether the clause requires that a 'mechanical exercise' be undertaken in ascertaining the costs incurred or if it allows the superintendent the degree of discretion that supports a construction that the costs certificate is not subject to review for error.

630 Clause 44.6 does not incorporate into the process any schedule for ascertainment of the costs or fixed, objective criteria, (such that there is no discretionary element in the certification) whereupon there can only be one uniquely correct value. Although the superintendent is required to certify the amounts, setting out the calculations employed to arrive at the sum certified, that provision does not reduce the exercise to a mechanical one or avoid the need for the superintendent to exercise discretionary judgments. I do not accept that cost accounting is merely a mathematical calculation free of the need for discretionary judgment. Further, I reject the characterisation advanced by Dura that all Mr Clack made was a subjective, or capricious, allocation. As I have stated above, Mr Clack's judgment, when allocating costs - for example, from an invoice for the work of a trade to elemental categories separated into rectification, completion and enhancement - involved his professional skills. The proper allocation was a discretionary judgment, made in a reasoned way, and based on disclosed methods considering the source information, found in the project documents, and instructions from the project architect and owner.

631 I am satisfied that the resultant certificate, involving discretionary judgment by the superintendent who, adopting Mr Clack's work, ascertained the costs as required by cl 44.6, followed the process contemplated by the contract and that process is not open to review for error. It is final and binding.

632 I would add, in case it becomes necessary to consider the issue, that Dura has not demonstrated any error by Mr Clack in the process by which he ascertained the costs that make up the certificate. Dura's prime objection was that the certificate erroneously incorporated enhancement costs in the costs to complete its work, but its submission focussed on the global approach adopted to assessing rectification costs. Dura invited me to analyse this issue by reference to a particular item, bathtubs, contending that the cost of installing new bathtubs, plainly an enhancement, were included in the costs of rectification or completion. If I accepted that fact, Dura contended that the global basis of the claim precluded identification of the appropriate allowance to vary the certificate. The bathtubs are not a good example for Dura. I have noted above that the conclave of Messrs Holman and Barber accepted the bathtubs as defectively installed. I have also accepted the evidence of Messrs Chu and Pozzebon. I consider the cost of installing new bathtubs was rectification, not enhancement. The rectification costs were part of the costs incurred by Hue in completing the works. It is not to the point, on a contention that the certificate erroneously incorporated enhancement costs, that the rectification costs were calculated globally as the remaining costs after deducting the other components of the total costs incurred by Hue in completing the works. There was no error by Mr Clack in ascertaining the enhancement costs for two reasons. First, I have set out above why I accept Mr Clack's methodology in determining and costing enhancements as appropriate. Second, I have rejected as inadmissible, alternatively, unreliable Mr Faifer's evidence about enhancement costs. Appropriately, the enhancement costs ascertained by Mr Clack were properly excluded from the amount certified as owing by Dura.

633 It follows that Hue is entitled to rely on the superintendent's cl 44.6 certificate to claim the sum certified, $4,457,306.70 as a debt due to it.

634 For convenience I will set out again the component heads of Hue's damages claim

635 In view of the manner of resolution of the issues in this proceeding, it is unnecessary to consider further the breach of the scaffolding warranty.

636 In respect of payments to Dura subcontractors, Dura did not dispute the evidence of Mr Wong, and Mr Clack, that Hue paid $626,826.96 to subcontractors. The agreed amount of the bank guarantees cashed by Hue on 14 December 2006 was $422,500, leaving a net payment by Hue of $204,326.96. There was no issue about the quantum of the sum claimed. The position in respect of retention sums held by Dura and claimed by subcontractors to be payable to them was a little different. The amount claimed was $49,883.50 and there was no application to amend the claim. The evidence suggested other amounts. Mr Clack's evidence was that refunded retentions totalled $59,697.30 but Mr Wong put the total at $63,178.67. These different assessments were never reconciled. In the circumstances, I assess the quantum of the retentions paid to Dura subcontractors at the amount claimed.

637 Mr Hon Wong proved Hue's additional financing and security costs at $2,047,416.12 which was not, as to the quantum of the claim, challenged by Dura. I assess the quantum of this head of damage in the sum claimed.

638 Dura took a different point. Dura's submission acknowledged that Hue is generally entitled to claim common law damages for any loss or damage caused by Dura's breach. However, Dura contended that by proceeding under cl 44.4, Hue chose a path that precludes common law rights. Hue could elect to affirm the contract while taking the work out of Dura's hands or to terminate the contract. As either option is inconsistent with the continued right to enjoy the other, this is a true election.[122] Thus, Dura submitted that Hue lost the right to claim damages on termination of the contract by its election. Conversely, had Hue terminated the contract, it would have been unable to take the benefit of a cl 44.6 certificate. Dura contends that the principal cannot claim common law damages for termination and enforce a cl 44.6 certificate. Dura's submission contrasts cl 44.10, which specifies that the parties' rights and liabilities on termination 'shall be the same as they would have been at common law had the defaulting party repudiated the contract and the other party elected to treat the Contract as at an end and recover damages' with the absence of a like provision if the principal exercises the right under cl 44.4(a) to take the works from the contractor. Dura submits that to permit Hue to claim common law damages in addition to the certificate under cl 44.6 would be contrary to the expressed intention of the parties.

639 This contention is misconceived. While cl 44.10 articulates the rights of the innocent party to claim damages against the defaulting party on termination, cl 44.6 does not address that question. By cl 44.6, the parties have agreed to a process to certify the sum due when the contract continues with the works taken from the contractor. The certification is not of the damages that the principal is entitled to recover following on an antecedent breach of contract by the defaulting contractor, it is no more than the certification of two matters:

(a) costs incurred by the principal in completing the work that was taken out of the hands of the contractor; and

(b) the amount which would otherwise have been paid to the contractor had it completed the works.

The cl 44.6 procedure is silent as to the entitlement to damages that may have accrued to the principal by the substantial breaches of the contract that constituted the default under cl 44.2. Loss and damage may flow from such breach and not form part of the costs incurred by the principal in completing the works. It is trite to observe that a right to damages for loss caused by breach of contract arises irrespective of whether the contract is terminated. Loss caused by a breach of contract is compensable if the innocent party continues to require performance of the contract.[123] Clause 44.1 expressly reserves common law rights. It provides that if a party breaches the contract nothing in cl 44 shall prejudice the right of the innocent party to recover damages or exercise any other right.

640 Once it is accepted, as is the case, that the claimed heads of damage are caused by the defaults that were the subject of the notices to show cause and may fairly and reasonably be considered to arise naturally from such breaches, such losses may be recoverable in addition to any debt certified as due under a cl 44.6 certificate. Recovery may be denied in at least two circumstances that may be presently relevant. First, there may be other provisions of the contract, which remains the source of obligations between the parties, governing responsibility for such loss. Second, if the expenses that constitute the claimed heads of damage form part of the costs incurred by the principal in completing the work, the principal suffers no loss when paid the debt due under the certificate. To claim part of the costs to complete as a certified debt and part as damages is to mount a collateral challenge to the certificate.

641 I am satisfied, for the reasons that follow, that Hue's heads of damage, additional to the certified debt, form part of the cost incurred by it in completing Dura's work.

642 Dealing firstly with the payments to Dura subcontractors, these costs ought to have been ascertained as part of the principal's costs to complete the work. Mr Clack, when he was first engaged, negotiated with Dura's subcontractors, and made payments to them expressly to enable Liquid Lines to re-commence the works. Mr Clack was plainly aware why Hue incurred those expenses. Mr Clack did not include such costs in his assessment, which appeared focussed on the expenses invoiced by Liquid Lines rather than the costs incurred by Hue. It is likely that Mr Clack when ascertaining the total cost erroneously ascertained the total cost incurred by the principal as he seems to have focussed on ascertaining the total cost paid to Liquid Lines. Hue, like Dura, cannot challenge the superintendent's certificate for error, but it neither directly seeks to do so nor asserts that it can. Hue will be compensated for the cost incurred by it in completing the work by the sum certified as a debt due to it. It cannot separately assert a right to this head of damages and thereby collaterally impugn the finality of the certificate. It is not entitled to judgment in a greater sum than the certified debt by an award of damages representing payments to Dura's subcontractors. Put another way, had Dura paid the sum certified in 2008, it would have had a good defence to Hue's claim for these damages on the ground that the loss formed part of the costs to complete the works, and it had discharged its debt by paying on the certificate. For the reasons already given, Hue could not challenge the finality of the certificate.

643 There is also a claim for a head of damage comprising additional consultants and superintendence costs, as set out in schedule 5 of Hue's counterclaim. Mr Wong's evidence established the quantum of this head of claim, also not challenged by Dura, in the sums particularised. This evidence was not detailed. It is apparent from the pleading schedule that these costs were paid to the consultants identified in these reasons for work in 2006 and early 2007. There was no further definition of the scope and purpose of the consultants' retainers. I consider these costs formed part of Hue's expenses in identifying the scope of the rectification and completion work. I refuse this claim for the same reasons as I refused the claim for moneys paid to Dura's subcontractors.

644 The other head of damage concerns the additional financing, insurance and security costs. These costs are time delay, or 'holding' costs, incurred because the works were not completed by the date for practical completion. They are susceptible to the above analysis as costs incurred in completing the works and I will not allow this head of damage. Dura advanced an alternative contention. The principal is precluded from common law damages and obliged to claim liquidated damages because the contract is still on foot and particular provisions govern the cost consequences of delay. Clause 35.6 provides that where the contractor fails to bring the works to practical completion by the date for practical completion the contractor shall be indebted to the principal for liquidated damages at the rate stated in the contract for every day after the date for practical completion up until the date of practical completion. The basic principle is that a valid liquidated damages clause will represent an exhaustive remedy for breach of the obligation to complete by the due date.[124] In J-Corp Pty Ltd v Mladenis[125] the Western Australian Court of Appeal stated the applicable principle:

It is clear that the parties to an agreement may, as part of their agreement, fix an amount that is to be payable by way of damages in the event of a breach of the agreement. Provided the amount so fixed is a genuine pre-estimate of the damage that would arise from the breach, and not so out of all proportion as to be by way of a penalty, that amount is recoverable without proof of the actual loss caused by the breach. It is immaterial that the amount of the actual loss turns out to be less than the amount specified. Equally, if the actual loss turns out to be greater than the amount of the liquidated damages, the claimant cannot ignore the liquidated damages clause and sue for unliquidated damages: Diestal v Stevenson [1906] 2 KB 345; Talley v Wolsley-Neech (1978) 38 P & CR 45 (CA). That is, ordinarily a valid liquidated damages clause fixes the amount that is recoverable in the event of a breach, regardless of whether the claimant's actual loss is greater or less than the amount specified. The position would appear to be the same where the amount specified is, not so disproportionately large as to be a penalty, but on the contrary so small that it cannot be regarded as a genuine pre-estimate of the probable loss. In such a case, the clause has been regarded as akin to a clause limiting the extent in damages of a party's liability: McGregor on Damages (17th ed, 2003) 13-071.[126]

645 Hue has not claimed liquidated damages, nor has it, as the party alleging delay causing loss and damage, proved the period of delay, its cause, or that Liquid Lines proceeded with due expedition and without delay to complete the works. These were matters for the judgment of the superintendent on certification. Had the superintendent done so, the extent to which such costs might properly form a component of the costs to Hue to complete the works could have been appropriately certified.

646 Hue carries the burden of proving its entitlement to common law damages. Hue submitted that if I found that it failed to discharge that burden because the expenses ought to have been included in the certificate, Dura had not pleaded that fact. Hue contended that it should nonetheless recover such damages because, had Dura earlier raised this issue, Hue might have considered whether to invite the superintendent to rectify the certificate. The parties did not debate whether the process of rectification of certificates under the contract applies to a cl 44.6 certificate, but is a matter I need not decide. Dura disputed the calculation of the certified debt by paragraph 24A of its amended defence to Hue's counterclaim. Further, Dura pleaded that the claim to damages for delay costs, particularised as finance holding costs was not loss and damage that Hue had suffered and that the plea was embarrassing. This particular allegation might be wide enough to enliven the issue, but was always obscure as to its precise content. Hue did not seek particulars or other relief and the statement of issues for trial agreed between the parties included the issue identified at paragraph [50] above. Even though the pleading is not satisfactory, I cannot find that Hue is entitled to common law damages.

647 Hue submitted the certificate is proper, representing the costs to complete the project ascertained in accordance with the contract, and put it forward as the basis of its counterclaim. I have accepted that submission. I have rejected collateral attack on the certificate. I do not consider that it is open for Hue to assert, in reply address, the possibility, nothing more, that might have invited the superintendent to rectify the certificate if it later turned out that these expenses were properly classified as costs to complete. Having failed to satisfy me that it has suffered loss additional to its costs to complete, to the debt certified, the damages claim fails for want of proof of loss or as a collateral attack on the certificate. The issue is not decided on an affirmative allegation that Dura failed to plead. Hue sues on a final and binding certificate in accordance with the terms of the contract. Any opportunity for Hue to rectify the certificate, if permissible, has long past. These amounts do not represent loss and damage recoverable by Hue for the reasons I have given.

648 For these reasons, Hue will not recover the losses describes as the common law heads of damage.

649 Finally, it is necessary to deal with the funds totalling $1,007,694.49 held on trust following adjudications under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic).

650 Mr Hon Wong gave evidence of these sums. He stated that because of three adjudication applications made by Dura, Hue paid a total of $1,007,964.49 into a trust account. This amount was deposited in three instalments: $108,748.84 on 15 June 2006, $99,330.00 on 11 July 2006, and $799,885.65 on 11 December 2006.

651 Section 47(3) of the Act provides:

(3) In any proceedings before a court or tribunal in relation to any matter arising under a construction contract, the court or tribunal-

(a) must allow for any amount paid to a party to the contract under or for the purposes of this Part in any order, determination or award it makes in those proceedings; and

(b) may make such orders as it considers appropriate for the restitution of any amount so paid, and such other orders as it considers appropriate, having regard to its decision in those proceedings.

652 Neither party made a submission as to how the court ought to deal with these funds. Nor was any detail about the adjudications that may be in evidence addressed in submissions. It is not clear to me whether, and if so how, the funds in trust are accounted for, if at all, in the calculations that have been put to the court. It may be that I ought to order release of the funds in trust to Hue in part satisfaction of the proposed judgment, and I will hear further from counsel about the orders that should be made pursuant to s 47(3) in respect of those trust funds and any interest that has accrued.

653 I dismiss Dura's claim. There will be judgment for the defendant, Hue. There will be judgment on the counterclaim for Hue, that it recovers $4,457,308 from the plaintiff, Dura. I will hear further from counsel on the issue of the funds in trust, interest, and costs. I will also hear from counsel as to the directions required to bring the trust proceeding on for trial.

[1] [2011] HCA 21, (2011) 243 CLR 588, at [42], [135].

[3] See R 3.02 TEC Rules and paragraph 18 of the TEC List Practice Note.

[4] I am mindful of the observations of the majority at [19]-[20] and of Heydon J at [123]-[124], which is one reason why I have discussed above, in some detail, the course of case management and the opportunities that this process afforded to the parties. The issues identified remain relevant but in these circumstances they are not determinative.

1. [5] Compare Rhoden v Wingate [2002] NSWCA 165, at [61]-[73] (Heydon JA).

[7] s 49(3)(j) Civil Procedure Act 2010, other relevant matters are also set out in the section.

[8] s 8, the sub-paragraph references follow the relevant sub-paragraphs of the section.

[9] [2011] HCA 21, (2011) 243 CLR 588 (22 June 2011) at [31].

[11] Relevance is governed by Part 3.1 of the Act.

[12] of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), cf s 76 of the Victorian Act.

[13] [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, 744 [85], approved in Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588 at [37].

[14] [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588, [61].

[15] [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588, [39]-[40].

[16] [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 197 CLR 414, 427 [39]-[44].

[17] [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, 743-4 [85].

[18] See also ASIC v Rich & Ors [2005] NSWCA 152; (2005) 218 ALR 764; Paino v Paino [2008] NSWCA 276; (2008) 40 Fam LR 96; Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Limited [2011] NSWCA 11 (15 February 2011).

[20] [2011] NSWCA 11 (15 February 2011) (Beazley JA with Giles and Tobias JJA agreeing).

[21] a reference to the three sub-rules of what I have characterised as the factual basis rules.

[22] [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588 at [101].

[23] Australia, The Law Reform Commission, Evidence, Report No 26, (1985) vol 1 at 417 [750].

[24] [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588 at [129].

[25] bearing in mind the discretion under s 135 of the Act.

[26] See also the summary list of considerations identified by Austin J in ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 149, (2005) 190 FLR 242 at [256].

[27] [2002] FCA 1315; (2002) 51 ATR 223.

[28] [2005] NSWSC 1313.

[29] [2010] NSWSC 921 (18 August 2010).

[30] Makita(Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 149 at [256]; Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2001] NSWSC 995 at [7]; Ray Fitzpatrick Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 791; (2007) 157 LGERA 100 at [29]; and Investmentsource v Knox St Apartments [2007] NSWSC 1128 at [50].

[31] Nm Rural Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rimanui Farms Ltd [2010] NSWSC 921 at [27].

[32] This was later conceded under cross-examination.

[33] [1841] EngR 61; (1841) 8 M&W 858. See Riverside Motors Pty Ltd v Abrahams [1944] VicLawRp 13; (1944) VLR 45.

[34] For example it is clear that no evidence will be lead in the trial that is capable of establishing an assumed factual basis postulated for an expert's opinion.

[35] Cf Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd v Darryl I Coombs Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 323.

[36] That justification for the scaffolding claims was not pleaded by Dura.

[37] An observation commonly made about detail, or close up, photographs.

[38] 12th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, at 3-007.

[39] After the issue became 'live' on day 3 of the trial, Dura sought leave to amend its pleading to allege the re-service of the notices on 11 September 2006. Leave was granted in 4 November 2011, day 22 of the trial.

[40] Fletcher v Nokes [1891] 1 Ch 271; Penton v Barnett [1898] 1 QB 276.

[41] Hometeam Constructions Pty Ltd v McCauley [2005] NSWCA 303, at [146] (McColl JA).

[42] Cf Brenmar Building Co Limited v University of Newcastle (1999) 15 BCL 467.

[44] [1965] NSWR 1671, 1675-6.

[46] [2005] NSWCA 303. This decision and the cases reviewed by McColl JA are considered below. See also Diploma Construction Pty Ltd v Marula Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 229; (2010) 26 BCL 204, at [77] - [79], Newnes JA (Owen and Miller JJA agreeing).

[47] [2005] VSCA 29.

[48] With whom Winneke P and Buchanan JA agreed.

[50] [1997] UKHL 19; [1997] AC 749.

[51] [1971] 1 Ch 233 at 265.

[53] Yendex Pty Ltd v Prince Constructions Pty Ltd (1989) 5 BCL 74.

[54] Dorter & Sharkey_, Building and Construction Contracts in Australia_, Vol 1 at para 12.120.

[55] (1992) 26 NSWLR 234.

[56] [2004] VSC 477 at 120 (23 November 2004). Dura referred me to the reasons of the trial judge whose decision was appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

[57] See clause 1 and Annexure part A of the General Conditions of the contract (AS 2124-1992).

[58] Hue cited the decision of the Court of Appeal: Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v Southern Pacific Petroleum NL & Ors [2005] VSCA 228 (15 September 2005).

[59] Lewison and Hughes, Interpretation of Contracts in Australia, Law Book Co, 2012, 261 [6.14].

[60] Council of the City of Sydney v Goldspar Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 472; (2006) 230 ALR 437 at [166] (Gyles J).

[61] [2005] VSCA 228 (15 September 2005).

[62] Ibid at [25], Warren CJ and Osborn AJA agreeing.

[63] Cf Vodafone Pacific Ltd v Mobile Innovations Ltd [2004] NSW CA 15 at [191] (Giles JA).

[64] (1977) 180 CLB 266.

[65] [2005] VSCA 228 (15 September 2005) at [4].

[66] [2005] FCA 288 at [65], affirmed on other grounds [2006] FCAFC 40; [2006] 149 FCR 395.

[67] [2008] TASSC 86; (2008) 17 Tas R 320.

[68] Tennent J, Buchanan JA and Mandie JA.

[70] [2005] VSCA 228 (15 September 2005), at [28].

[71] See Greater London Council v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd (1986) 34 BLR 50; Hick v Raymond & Reid [1893] AC 22, at 29; Maynard v Goode [1926] HCA 4; (1926) 37 CLR 529, at 538; Hometeam Constructions Pty Ltd v McCauley [2005] NSWCA 303 at [177].

[72] This expression can be contrasted with the problematic, commonly used phrase 'proceed with due diligence' - see the discussion by Golvan QC, 'Due Diligence and Expedition Terms in Building Contracts - Obligations and Issues', Australian Construction Law Newsletter, (1999) Issue 69, 39.

[73] [1971] Ch 233, 269.

[74] (1994) 71 BLR 1, 14.

[75] [1965] NSWR 1671, at 1675-1676.

[76] Supreme Court of Victoria, unreported judgment, McGarvie J, 2 April, 1980.

[77] (1986) 34 BLR 50.

[79] [1970] ALR 821, 822-823.

[81] [2005] NSWCA 303.

[82] McColl JA, Ipp and Tobias JJA agreeing.

[85] Ibid at [169], citing Westminster Corporation v J Jarvis & Sons Ltd and Another [1970] 1 WLR 637, 643 & 645.

[86] Ibid at [166], citing Hobbs v Petersham Transport Co Pty Ltd [1971] HCA 26; (1971) 124 CLR 220.

[87] Ibid at [181], citing Brady v Group Lotus Car Cos Plc [1987] 3 All ER 1050, 1059 (Mustill LJ).

[91] McColl JA notes that McCauley never sought to establish lack of due diligence by proving that the rate at which the works were progressing at the time the notice of default was served was such that they could not be completed by the expiry of the contract period as reasonably extended to take the rectification work into account.

[93] See clauses 46 and 47 of AS 2124-1992.

[94] Cf Thunder Corp Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 56 (23 February 2011).

[95] [[2002] QCA 119; 2003] 1 Qd R 174, 182.

[96] Mr Ring stated that although a two coat application, contractors often applied a second base coat, before the final coat, to achieve a suitable finish.

[97] In construction programming, an emasculating jargon term is constructed by pressing the noun 'status' into service as a verb hence 'statused' or 'statusing'.

[98] These assumptions were established by Mr Pozzebon.

[99] Save for Chengan Tan who did not give evidence.

[100] Mr Andrews' assessment of slippage in progress to practical completion during this period confirms that the increased labour force was mostly working on defect rectification.

[101] Compare the discussion in Lewison and Hughes, The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia, Thomson Reuters, 2012, 251 [6.11].

[102] [2008] VSCA 68.

[103] See Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 21; (1976) 136 CLR 444, 453.

[104] [1991] HCA 54; (1991) 174 CLR 64, 138.

[105] (1996) 8 VR 681; (1997) 13 BCL 262, 267;.

[106] For example, see Stockland (Constructors) Pty Limited and Anor v Darryl I Coombs [2004] NSWSC 323 (20 April 2004).

[107] Legal & General Life of Australia Ltd v A Hudson Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 314, 335-336.

[108] WMC Resources Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (1999) 20 WAR 489; (2000) 16 BCL 53.

[109] AGL Victoria Pty Ltd v TXU Networks (Gas) Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 225.

[110] Yarraman Pine Pty Ltd v Forestry Plantations Queensland [2009] QCA 102.

[111] With Kennedy and White JJ agreeing.

[112] WMC Resources Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (1999) 20 WAR 489, at [18].

[118] [2004] VSC 225 (2 July, 2004).

[121] [2009] QCA 102, at [43].

[122] O'Connor v SP Bray Ltd (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 248, 257-63 (Jordan CJ); Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd [1974] HCA 40; (1974) 131 CLR 634, 655 (Mason J); see also Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394.

[123] Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd [1938] HCA 66; (1938) 61 CLR 286, 300; Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 21; (1976) 136 CLR 444, 450; Progressive Mailing House v Tabali Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 14; (1985) 157 CLR 17, 31.

[124] Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts, Sweet & Maxwell, (12th ed), at 888, [6-023].

[125] (2010) 26 BCL 106; [2009] WASCA 157.

[126] Ibid at [35]-[36] (Newnes JA, Buss and Miller JJA agreeing).