Contractors fail in breach bid

Press, 9 November 1984, Page 4

Contractors fail in breach bid

A claim for $556,852 against the Christchurch City Council for an alleged breach of contract by J. and W. Jamieson Construction, Ltd, arising from the extension construction of the terminal building at the Christchurch Airport, which began in 1973, has failed.

In a reserved decision Sven by Mr Justice Cook in e High Court yesterday, his Honour resolved however, that the company was entitled to some allowances because of alterations to the contract together with a delay in receiving relevant information. That sum has still to be determined following submissions by counsel. His Honour also ruled that Jamieson Construction was not automatically entitled to a margin because the length of the contract had been extended.

The hearing of the case took almost four, weeks extended over June, July, and August. The judgment is of 72 pages.. -J ■ . Messrs A. A. P. Willy and O. Matson appeared for Jamieson Construction, and Messrs J. G. Fogarty and A. A. Couch for the City Council.

His Honour said that Jamieson’s was the successful tenderer for the contract to extend the terminal building at the Christchurch Airport in 1973. Work started on June 11 of that year. The tender price was $2,677,013 for the original

contract and that sum included $1,491,303 for work to be done by sub-contractors. Soon after work began a great number of variations to the work were issued during a period. Problems were experienced by the contractor and sub-contrac-tors in receiving adequate drawings to permit changes to the work to be done, without disruption of planned schedules. The variations and difficulties were frequently discussed at site meetings. A number of extensions of time were granted and eventually a date in September, 1975, was fixed as marking practical completion of the project. A certificate to that effect was signed by the architects on September 24, 1975. A maintenance period of 12 months was to run for mechanical work and for 13 weeks in the case of other work. ; ■ . . In fact a substantial number of variations were issued, which, coupled with the fact that there seemed to have been a lack of expedition on the part of many involved once the certificate had been given, resulted in the work not being completed until December 5, 1978. Jamieson Construction claimed that the City Council failed to provide adequate plans and specifications and contract information to enable it to cany out the contract: that the Council varied the contract to

such an extent as to be wholly incompatible with the agreement between the parties; and that the breaches prevented the firm from doing its building business in a normal commercial fashion.

It was also alleged by the company that because of the breaches its business became financially unsound and was unable to continue with the result that it had been deprived of the opportunity to earn profits on continued business trading. An alternative ground of claim was made for $365,715 for. a contractor’s margin for costs to cover the period from the original completion date to December 5, 1978.

His Honour said that as he understood the position, the value and number of the architectural variations during the latter period were not great and almost all were additions.

The only substantial change, as opposed to additions, appeared to have been the omission of one set of shutter doors and the substitution of another, rather more expensive set. He could not think that anything further should be due to Jamiesons in respect of those variations.

“As to the others, electrical, mechanical services, and so on, there are certain aspects on which I am not entirely clear and concerning which I wish to hear further from counsel,” his Honour said.