Contents:
- GAYMARK INVTMENTS V WALTER CONSTCTN GROUP
- CAS - GAYMARK INVTMENTS PTY LTD V WALTER CONSTCTN GROUP LTD
- “I DELAY, YOU PAY”; ANOTHER LOOK AT GAYMARK
- GAYMARK INVTMENTS PTY LTD V WALTER CONSTCTN GROUP LTD
GAYMARK INVTMENTS V WALTER CONSTCTN GROUP
GAYMARK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD V WALTER CONSTRUCTION GROUP LTD. Gaymark Invtments Pty Ltd (‘Gaymark’) entered to a modified NPWC 3 ntract wh Walter Constctn Group Ltd(‘Walter’) to nstct the Darw Central Hotel plex. Gaymark unter-claimed for $1, 554, 059, prcipally arisg through the applitn of liquidated damag acrdance wh the ntract.
CAS - GAYMARK INVTMENTS PTY LTD V WALTER CONSTCTN GROUP LTD
The dispute was arbrated, the arbrator ncludg that Gaymark was not entled to liquidated damag.
Walter had been layed for 77 days “by for which Gaymark was rponsible eher directly or through the Supertennt”. This lay nstuted “acts of preventn” by Gaymark wh the rult that there was no date for practil pletn and Walter was obliged to plete wh a reasonable time.
“I DELAY, YOU PAY”; ANOTHER LOOK AT GAYMARK
However, afford the Supertennt no general discretn to extend time absence of such strict pliance notwhstandg that Walter had been actually layed by act, omissn or breach of ntract for which Gaymark was rponsible. Gaymark appealed unr the Commercial Arbratn Act, that there was a manift error of law on the face of the award.
Gaymark Invtments Pty Ltd v Walter Constctn Group Ltd. That is the route adopted by both the arbrator and the urt Gaymark Invtments v Walter Constctn Group (1999) NTSC 143. Acceptance of Gaymark’s submissns would rult an entirely unmeror award of liquidated damag for lays of s own makg (and this addn to the avoidance of Concrete Constctn’s lay sts bee of that pany’s failure to ply wh the notice provisns of SC 19).
GAYMARK INVTMENTS PTY LTD V WALTER CONSTCTN GROUP LTD
The Gaymark cisn has e for some cricism, particular om the late Ian Dunn Wallace London. So what Bailey J was sayg Gaymark, paraphrasg and addg the Pensular Balma pot, was this (puttg for the moment a subntractual ntext):. But that is not the only basis on which Gaymark distguished the Turner s.
Attempts to dislodge the Gaymark cisn as bdg Atralian law have so far been unsuccsful. In Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd v Landtec Projects Corp Pty Ltd (No 2)[5] McLure P found that she did not need to terme any nflict between the Turner s and Gaymark.