Wynland Construction (Pty) Ltd v Ashley-Smith en Andere 1985 (3) SA 798 (A)

Wynland Construction (Pty) Ltd v Ashley-Smith en Andere 1985 (3) SA 798 (A)

Issue: Whether a subcontractor has a right of lien over a building in respect of unpaid work performed on the building.

Facts:

Wynland Construction (Pty) Ltd (Wynland), a building contractor, entered into a contract with Ashley-Smith and others (Ashley-Smith) to construct a house for Ashley-Smith. Under the terms of the contract, Wynland was to be paid for its work as the work progressed.

Wynland commenced work on the house and completed approximately 80% of the work. However, Ashley-Smith fell into arrears with its payments to Wynland. As a result, Wynland stopped work on the house.

Wynland then applied for a spoliation order against Ashley-Smith, seeking to regain possession of the house so that it could complete the work. Wynland argued that it had a right of lien over the house in respect of its unpaid work, which gave it the right to possession of the house until its debts were paid.

Ashley-Smith opposed the application, arguing that Wynland did not have a right of lien over the house. Ashley-Smith argued that the right of lien was only available to main contractors, not subcontractors.

Held:

The court held that Wynland did have a right of lien over the house in respect of its unpaid work. The court reasoned that the right of lien was available to both main contractors and subcontractors, as long as the subcontractor had been employed by the main contractor and had performed work on the building.

Key Facts:

• A building contractor entered into a contract with a homeowner to construct a house.
• Under the terms of the contract, the building contractor was to be paid for its work as the work progressed.
• The homeowner fell into arrears with its payments to the building contractor.
• As a result, the building contractor stopped work on the house.
• The building contractor then applied for a spoliation order against the homeowner, seeking to regain possession of the house so that it could complete the work.
• The building contractor argued that it had a right of lien over the house in respect of its unpaid work, which gave it the right to possession of the house until its debts were paid.
• The homeowner opposed the application, arguing that the building contractor did not have a right of lien over the house.

Reasons:

• The court found that the building contractor did have a right of lien over the house in respect of its unpaid work.
• The court reasoned that the right of lien was available to both main contractors and subcontractors, as long as the subcontractor had been employed by the main contractor and had performed work on the building.
• The court also found that the building contractor had not abandoned the contract by stopping work on the house.
• The court reasoned that the building contractor had stopped work because the homeowner had failed to make its payments.
• The court concluded that the building contractor was entitled to possession of the house until its debts were paid.

Conclusion:

The court's decision in Wynland Construction (Pty) Ltd v Ashley-Smith en Andere 1985 (3) SA 798 (A) is a significant case in South African law. The court's decision clarified the law of lien and made it clear that subcontractors have the same right of lien as main contractors.