APN DF2 Project 2 Pty Ltd v Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

APN DF2 PROJECT 2 PTY LTD

v

GROCON CONSTRUCTORS (VICTORIA) PTY LTD & ANOR

[2016] HCASL 54
M188/2015

  1. This application raises no issue of principle warranting the grant of special leave. Further, the utility of any order upon appeal is doubtful, given that the gravamen of this matter concerns a progress payment verification mechanism relating to a project which is now complete.

  2. Pursuant to r 41.11.1, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

S.M. Kiefel
7 April 2016
P.A. Keane
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read APN DF2 Project 2 Pty Ltd v Grocon Constructors (Victoria) P... 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
[2016] HCASL 54
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

APN DF2 Project 2 Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary dispute between the parties involved a contractual progress payment verification mechanism in relation to a construction project. The application was made to the High Court of Australia, specifically to the Full Court, under the provisions of the High Court of Australia Act 1979.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the application warranted the grant of special leave to appeal. The focus was on whether the matter raised any significant legal principles that warranted the intervention of the High Court. Additionally, the court had to consider the utility of any potential orders that might be made upon appeal, given that the construction project in question was now complete.

The court concluded that no significant legal principles were at stake in the application, and that the primary concern of the matter related to a progress payment verification mechanism for a completed project. Consequently, the court determined that the application did not warrant the grant of special leave. The Full Court also found that the utility of any order upon appeal was doubtful. Therefore, the application was dismissed with costs.

The final orders of the court were that the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. This decision was made on 7 April 2016 by S.M. Kiefel, with P.A. Keane concurring.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.