ANZ Properties Pty Ltd v Sayde Developments Pty Ltd - [2020] NSWSC 801

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: ANZ Properties Pty Ltd v Sayde Developments Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 801
Hearing dates: 10 June 2020
Date of orders: 25 June 2020
Decision date: 25 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
The Court orders that:
(1) Pursuant to s 144 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) proceedings number 2019/326391 in the District Court of New South Wales, Sydney are transferred to this Court.
(2) ANZ Properties Pty Ltd are to file and serve a cross claim in this Court within 14 days.
(3) Costs are reserved.
(4) The matter is listed for a directions hearing before the registrar at 9.30 and on 16 July 2020.

Catchwords:
PROCEDURE – Whether proceedings in the District Court should be transferred to this Court – Whether leave should be granted to file cross claim

Legislation Cited:
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
BOC v MDL [2019] NSWSC 278
Hau Shan v Fairfield City Council [2020] NSWSC 681
Hewins v Formica Plastics Pty Ltd [1968] 3 NSWR 793

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: ANZ Properties Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Sayde Developments Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
EQ Products Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Sydney WSPG Realty Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Southwick (Plaintiff)
G Campbell (Third Defendant)
Solicitors:
Macquarie Lawyers (Plaintiff)
United Associates Barristers & Solicitors (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/105279
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: By amended summons filed 7 May 2020, the plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to s 144 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) that proceedings number 2019/326391 in the District Court of New South Wales at Sydney be transferred to this Court.
In this Court, the plaintiff is ANZ Properties Pty Ltd (ANZ Properties). The first defendant is Sayde Developments Pty Ltd (Sayde Developments). The second defendant is EQ Products Pty Ltd (EQ Products). The third defendant is Sydney WSPG Realty Pty Ltd (Sydney WSPG). ANZ Properties relied upon the affidavit of its solicitor Pierre Saab dated 6 April 2020. Sydney WSPG relied upon the affidavit of its solicitor Jiayao Peng dated 13 May 2020. Sayde Developments and EQ Products are not parties to the proceedings in the District Court and do not oppose this application. Sydney WSPG opposes this application on the basis that there is no connection or relationship between the proposed claim in the Supreme Court and Sydney WSPG’s claim in the District Court.
Mr M Southwick of counsel appeared for ANZ Properties. Mr G Campbell of counsel appeared for Sydney WSPG.
On 20 May 2020, by consent, an order was made that the first and second defendants be excused from the contested hearing of this transfer application between ANZ Properties and Sydney WSPG.

Background

In 2012, Sayde Developments was the owner of land at XX Norfolk Street and XXX Castlereagh Street, Liverpool (the property) on which 258 units were to be developed.
On 25 October 2012, Sayde Developments entered…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading ANZ Properties Pty Ltd v Sayde Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: ANZ Properties Pty Ltd v Sayde Developments Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 801
Case: [2020] NSWSC 801
Decision Date: 25 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between ANZ Properties Pty Ltd and Sayde Developments Pty Ltd, which pertained to a property development agreement. The proceedings were initially heard in the District Court, but ANZ Properties sought to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court. Additionally, Sayde Developments sought leave to file a cross-claim against ANZ Properties. The court had to determine whether the proceedings should indeed be transferred and whether Sayde Developments should be granted leave to file a cross-claim.

The primary legal issues before the court were the applicability of the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1970, particularly concerning the transfer of proceedings from the District Court to the Supreme Court. The court also needed to consider whether the proposed cross-claim by Sayde Developments was appropriate and if the leave to file such a claim should be granted. The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to provide clarity on these issues.

The court determined that the proceedings should be transferred from the District Court to the Supreme Court, given the complexity and significance of the dispute. The court reasoned that the transfer would ensure a more appropriate forum for resolving the matter. Regarding the cross-claim, the court found that it was appropriate for Sayde Developments to file a cross-claim against ANZ Properties. The court granted leave for the cross-claim, considering the potential for resolving all issues in one proceeding, thereby promoting judicial efficiency.

The final orders of the court included the transfer of the proceedings from the District Court to the Supreme Court and the granting of leave to Sayde Developments to file a cross-claim against ANZ Properties. These orders ensured that the matter would be heard in the most suitable court and that all relevant parties could present their claims and defences in one proceeding.

Orders