A building contractor has been ordered to pay a former client just over $142,000 after a court found he breached his contract and left the work unfinished.

Sheila Thomas said she had hired Haile Maskal, trading as West Side Construction Management, to carry out renovation work at her Pembroke home in 2014.

The Court heard Mr Maskal left the project later that year with work on the house still incomplete and did not return.

While Ms Thomas called for a refund of much of the money she had already paid, along with the cost for alternative accommodations when the work extended beyond the original deadline, Mr Maskal complained that delays were sparked by change orders and late payments.

In a recent ruling, Puisne Judge Larry Mussenden found in Ms Thomas’ favour, finding that Mr Maskal had underbid the project and that he was “desperate” for a reason to leave the job site.

“Based on all the facts and documents, I can infer that Mr Maskal was conducting his own assessment as well of payments against performance,” Mr Justice Mussenden wrote.

“He knew from the outset that he was calling for four monthly payments for a four-month job. He would have been using those funds to get him through the project month by month.

“By the time the last payment was made, there would be no further funding due to him, although there were still job tasks to be completed based on the scope of works, several months more were required according to the experts.”

He added: “To my mind, he was driving an out-of-control car towards a cliff edge and decided he needed to bail before he went over the edge.”

The court heard that Ms Thomas had hired Mr Maskal as part of a project to turn a one-storey dwelling into a two-storey dwelling.

She told the Supreme Court that the project was expected to be completed in four months at a cost of $207,700. Work began in May 2014.

Ms Thomas said the work continued at a “intermitted and slow pace”, and she became concerned about the progress of the project given the more than $150,000 that she had already paid.

In October, when she was supposed to give the final payment to Mr Maskal, she decided to withhold $20,000 until the project was completed.

On November 5, Mr Maskal and his crew arrived at the project but left without completing any additional work, leaving debris behind that Ms Thomas paid someone else to clear up.

She approached HSBC Bank to secure funding to complete the project, and a surveyor found that around $78,100 work had been complete, with a further cost to complete estimated to be $294,819.

While Ms Thomas argued Mr Maskal breached his contract when he walked away from the project, he argued that she had breached in by withholding $20,000 from the final payment and an additional billing of $15,370 for work that was completed.

Mr Justice Mussenden found that the proposed payment structure he relied on was “not expressed as a condition” and was not a serious breach in the circumstances.

“In my view Ms Thomas, who I accept had lost confidence in the ability of Mr Maskal to complete the project, was justified to withhold $20,000 from Mr Maskal,” he wrote.

“His position was that a withholding of funds was never part of their agreement. However, significantly, the overpayment was far in excess of the withheld $20,000 or the additional billing amount.”

Mr Justice Mussenden added that even if Ms Thomas had paid the outstanding amounts, he would not have been able to complete the project due to his “significant underbid”.

He found Mr Maskal liable for a breach of the contract and calculated damages at $129,550 for the money needed to complete the project and $13,000 for additional rent paid by Ms Thomas as a result of the breach.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers