Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 NOVEMBER 2011

Direct contracts with consultants and sub-contractors essential

Failed claim demonstrates the need to form direct contracts with consultants and sub-contractors as soon as possible.

AustraliaCorporate/Commercial Law

In brief – Owner not relevantly "vulnerable", so claims fail

CJD Equipment's failed claim against consulting and structural engineers demonstrates the need for owners and developers to form direct contracts with consultants and sub-contractors as early as possible.

Owner denied recourse against structural engineers

In the case of CJD Equipment Pty Limited v A&C Constructions Pty Limited & Ors [2011] NSWCA 188, the Court of Appeal has upheld a judgment in which the owner of a distressed building, CJD Equipment, was denied recourse against the structural engineers that designed the works. CJD, a significant private company described as the country's biggest independent supplier of new construction equipment, was held not to be relevantly "vulnerable", so that the consultant engineers with whom CJD had no direct contractual relationship owed no duty of care.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from