http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgmen...

http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/...nts-WebVw/2018WASC0019/$FILE/2018WASC0019.pdf

Very interesting read.

I find it extremely hard to believe that EGS did not appoint a Superintendent for the contract. Who would review the progress claim for labor and materials. More to the point who would then rebuff any claim made for payment for works completed under the contract.

I really like point 41, last sentence. Really?

41 Second, GR Engineering contends that progress claims were submitted to Mr Ofri in accordance with cl 37 of the Contract and that the amounts claimed became payments due to it pursuant to cl 37. Eastern Goldfields contends that in the absence of a superintendent the progress payment provisions in cl 37 did not apply and no payments are due pursuant to that clause. Eastern Goldfields contends that the fact that before the appointment of its present solicitors it had mistakenly accepted that payments were due did not mean that as a matter of law they were due.