Hennessey Glass & Aluminium P/L v Watpac Australia P/L [2002] QCA 24

Hennessey Glass & Aluminium P/L v Watpac Australia P/L [2002] QCA 24 (15 February 2002)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hennessey Glass & Aluminium P/L v Watpac Australia P/L [2002] QCA 24

PARTIES:

HENNESSEY GLASS & ALUMINIUM PTY LTD

ACN 051 330 100

(plaintiff/respondent)

v

WATPAC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 010 462 816

(defendant/applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9110 of 2001

DC No 523 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 February 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Ambrose J

Joint reasons for judgment of de Jersey CJ and Davies JA; separate reasons of Ambrose J, concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

1.

Grant leave to appeal.

2.

Order that the answer to the question "upon the proper construction of the contract, was the supply and installation of hardware to the unframed glass doors to the corporate suites described in the Don Mathieson and Staff Glass Pty Ltd invoice number 377682 an obligation required to be performed by the plaintiff under the contract such that the performance of that obligation would not entitle the plaintiff to any adjustment of the contract sum under the contract?" be set aside in so far as it concerns the matter of supply and adjourn further consideration of the answer to that part of the question to the District Court.

3.

No order as to costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS-GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION - CUSTOM

AND USAGE - INCORPORATION INTO CONTRACT - KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH PARTIES - appeal against decision of District Court judge - where building contract for installation of doors and windows - dispute over terms of sub-contract - whether the terms of a sub-contract had been correctly construed - construction and interpretation of the "scope of works" clause - whether subject doors were required to be framed or unframed - whether the respondent had to supply unframed glass doors pursuant to the sub-contract - whether trial judge proceeded on an erroneous factual basis that the sub-contract provided that the subject doors were to be framed.

INTERPRETATION - ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO INSTRUMENTS - WHEN EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW MEANING OF TERMS - where ambiguity in contract - whether Court should resort to the use of extrinsic material to determine the true meaning of the contract and the intention of both parties

CONTRACTS - BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS - OTHER MATTERS

Bank of New Zealand v Simpson [1900] AC 182, applied.

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337, applied

Turner v Bladin & Ors [1951] HCA 13; (1950-51) 82 CLR 463, cited.

COUNSEL:

JK Bond SC, with RC Schulte for the appellant

P A Keane QC, with P A Hastie for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Dibbs Barker Gosling for the appellant

Phillips Fox for the respondent.