Amirbeaggi v Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Amirbeaggi v Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 21
Hearing dates: 24 February 2021
Date of orders: 24 February 2021
Decision date: 26 February 2021
Before: Basten JA; Meagher JA
Decision:

(1)      Refuse the application for leave to appeal from each of the judgments of Johnson J in the Common Law Division of 30 June 2020 and 29 July 2020.

(2)      Order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs in this Court, assessed on the ordinary basis.

Catchwords:

APPEALS – leave to appeal – where primary judge refused leave to appeal to raise argument not dealt with by magistrate – whether argument made to magistrate – no error of primary judge in concluding not made

Legislation Cited:

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), s 25(1), (4)

Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), ss 92, 94(1), (3)

Cases Cited:

Hakea Holdings Pty Ltd v Denham Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1120

Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd v Fourtounas [2020] NSWCA 325

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Farshad Amirbeaggi (First Applicant)
Brooke Maniscalco (Second Applicant)
Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
N Kidd SC (Applicants)
L Shipway (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Yates Beaggi Lawyers (Applicants)
Advanta Legal (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2020/221679
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Citation:

[2020] NSWSC 827; [2020] NSWSC 962

Date of Decision:
30 June 2020
Before:
Johnson J
File Number(s):
2019/397879

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: The applicants, Mr Amirbeaggi and Ms Maniscalco, seek leave to appeal from two decisions of the primary judge (Johnson J). By the first (Amirbeaggi v Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 827 (Judgment 1)), his Honour refused the applicants leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Local Court dismissing their stay application, and by the second (Amirbeaggi v Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 962 (Judgment 2)) ordered the applicants to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court on an indemnity basis.

  2. At the conclusion of oral argument, orders were made dismissing the application for leave to appeal, with costs. These are the Court’s reasons for making those orders.

  3. The underlying proceedings relate to a dispute about a payment claim made by the respondent builder (Matrix Group) for works done at the applicants’ residential premises in Woollahra. In October 2016, the respondent was engaged to carry out the building works, which appear to have commenced in November 2016. The parties then signed a building contract in mid-January 2017.

  4. By February 2018, they were in dispute, the applicants alleging that the building works were defective, incomplete and delayed. The respondent obtained an adjudication certificate under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (Security of Payment Act) and filed it as a judgment in the Local Court for an amount of $60,253 (s 25(1)). That judgment was entered on 20…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Amirbeaggi v Matrix Group Co Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] NSWCA 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Amirbeaggi and others, sought leave to appeal from two judgments of Johnson J in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the refusal by the primary judge to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from decisions made by a Local Court magistrate. The applicants contended that the primary judge erred in refusing leave to appeal, specifically in relation to an argument they claimed was not dealt with by the magistrate.

The central legal issue before Basten and Meagher JJA was whether the primary judge had erred in law by refusing leave to appeal. This required the Court of Appeal to consider whether the argument the applicants sought to raise on appeal to the Supreme Court had indeed been presented to and considered by the Local Court magistrate. If the argument had not been made to the magistrate, the primary judge's refusal of leave to raise a new argument on appeal would be a key point of contention.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge's conclusion that the argument in question had not been made to the magistrate. Consequently, the Court determined that the primary judge had acted correctly in refusing leave to appeal on that basis. The Court of Appeal therefore refused the application for leave to appeal from both judgments of Johnson J. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the Court of Appeal, assessed on the ordinary basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Refuse the application for leave to appeal from each of the judgments of Johnson J in the Common Law Division of 30 June 2020 and 29 July 2020.

(2) Order that the applicants pay the respondent’s costs in this Court, assessed on the ordinary basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.