SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

2
rectify the defendant’s breaches of the contract specified in the
statement of claim and claims the costs of rectification as loss
and damage – where the defendant applies to strike out
paragraphs of the plaintiff’s statement of claim on the basis
that the paragraphs failed to assert a causal nexus between the
alleged breaches and the items of loss or damage – where the
plaintiff relies on the application of the “ruling principle” for
the assessment of damages for breach of contract – whether
sufficient material facts are pleaded by the plaintiff to support
the cause of action for damages for breach of contract
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613, considered
Clark v Macourt (2013) 253 CLR 1; [2013] HCA 56,
considered
Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA (2014) 310
ALR 113, considered
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009)
236 CLR 272; [2009] HCA 8, considered
Willshee v Westcourt Ltd [2009] WASCA 87, considered
G Beacham QC with B O’Brien for the plaintiffs
R A Holt QC with L Clark for the defendant
Herbert Smith Freehills for the applicants
McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the defendant
[1] The defendant applies to strike out paragraphs 19 to 23 of the plaintiffs’ statement of
claim filed on 23 April 2015 or, in the alternative, for an order that the plaintiffs provide
further and better particulars in respect of paragraphs 19(d) and 20 to 22. The application
is opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs. There is a dispute between the parties as to what
material facts must be pleaded in respect of the plaintiffs’ claim for damages for breach
of contract arising from works performed by the defendant (an earthworks contractor) in
constructing an earthworks dam and associated works at Goonyella Riverside Mine near
Moranbah.
Background to plaintiffs’ claim
[2] The plaintiffs are joint venture parties which own the mine and the first plaintiff is the
management company which operates the mine for them. The relevant contract was
entered into between the first plaintiff and the defendant in December 2010. In December
2011 the first plaintiff terminated the contract. At the time the termination took effect in
January 2012, the construction of the dam was incomplete.
[3] This proceeding was commenced by the plaintiffs in July 2013 claiming damages for
breach of contract and repudiation. The breaches alleged in paragraphs 14 to 18 of the
statement of claim are the placement of “lots” of soil in the embankment of the dam which
do not comply with the specifications in the contract, along with the late delivery or nondelivery
of the test results and reports required under the contract which were required to