BRP Industries Pty Ltd v Hynash Constructions Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: BRP Industries Pty Ltd v Hynash Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] NSWDC 392
Hearing dates: 30 August 2024
Date of orders: 2 September 2024
Decision date: 02 September 2024
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $243,792.28.

(2)   Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, including the costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion filed on 18 July 2024.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – summary judgment – repudiation of subcontract – notice of default – payment claim – matter arising under the construction contract – pay now argue later

Legislation Cited:

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3, 4, 13, 14, 15

Cases Cited:

Ampcontrol SWG Pty Ltd v Gujarat NRE Wonga Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 707

Grave v Blazevic Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 324; (2010) 79 NSWLR 132

Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) v Linx Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 366

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: BRP Industries Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Hynash Constructions Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
M Sheldon (Plaintiff)
D Byrne (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Finlaysons (Plaintiff)
Hamilton Locke (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2024/61843

Judgment

Introduction

  1. In early 2022 the defendant Hynash Constructions Pty Ltd (Hynash) was engaged by Bathurst Council as head contractor for the Bathurst Stormwater Harvesting #3198 Project (the Project).

  2. In November 2022 Hynash invited the plaintiff BRP Industries Pty Ltd (BRP) to issue a quotation for the performance of certain under boring works as part of the Project. On 8 November 2022 BRP issued a quotation in the amount of $1,006,880 plus GST for work which comprised “mobilisation”, “drill pilot hole, ream & insert supplied CN630mm pipe” and “demobilisation”.

  3. On 22 December 2022 Hynash and BRP executed a Subcontract Agreement (the Subcontract) for the performance of that work by BRP. On 10 October 2023 BRP issued a revised quotation in respect of the work which added an additional item. On 17 October 2023 Hynash accepted this revised quotation. The documentation referred to a proposed amended subcontract, but no such document was ever created or executed.

  4. In the absence of an amended subcontract, the agreement between Hynash and BRP comprised the Subcontract, as varied by the revised quotation and the related purchase order.

  5. On 30 October 2023 BRP commenced work under the Subcontract.

  6. BRP performed work and issued invoices from time to time.

  7. In January 2024 Hynash advised BRP that Hynash was involved in a contractual dispute with Bathurst Council and the works could not recommence. Hynash eventually instructed BRP that no further works were to be performed on the site. BRP accepted this repudiation of the Subcontract and on 5 March 2024 BRP sent Hynash a Notice of Default. Hynash did not respond to the Notice of Default or rectify the defaults complained of in the Notice.

  8. On 13 March 2024 BRP terminated the Subcontract.

  9. On 13 March 2024 BRP served on Hynash…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BRP Industries Pty Ltd v Hynash Constructions 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
[2024] NSWDC 392
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of BRP Industries Pty Ltd v Hynash Constructions Pty Ltd, the Federal Court was asked to decide a dispute concerning a claim for repudiation of a subcontract. The plaintiff, BRP Industries, sought summary judgment against the defendant, Hynash Constructions, for the sum of $243,792.28, which was the outstanding amount from a payment claim made under a construction contract. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that the defendant had repudiated the subcontract, thereby entitling the plaintiff to immediate payment under the 'pay now, argue later' principle. The court was also required to consider whether the plaintiff's notice of default was valid and whether it complied with the requirements of the relevant construction legislation.

The court found that the plaintiff had provided a valid notice of default and that the defendant's actions constituted a repudiation of the subcontract. The court determined that the 'pay now, argue later' principle applied, allowing the plaintiff to claim immediate payment. The court further held that the notice of default was properly issued and satisfied the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, including those associated with the notice of motion filed on 18 July 2024.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $243,792.28.

(2) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, including the costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion filed on 18 July 2024.

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.