C and v Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd (No.2)

[2022] NSWDC 173

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 173

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

25 May 2022

Decision date:

25 May 2022

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Abadee DCJ

Decision:

See paragraph 18

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – orders to give effect to reasons for judgment – terms of referral – basis for award of pre-judgment interest

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 100, 101

Cases Cited:

Bhundia v Sommers (No.4) [2021] NSWSC 455

C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 154

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Consequential orders

Parties:

C&V Engineering Services Pty Ltd (plaintiff)
Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Limited (defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr D Weinberger for the plaintiff
Mr M Sheldon for the defendant

Solicitors:
Bradbury Legal for the plaintiff
Vincent Young Lawyers for the defendant

File Number(s):

2021/00108258

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. On 12 May 2022 I delivered reasons for judgment and directed the parties to confer with a view to agreeing on orders to reflect those earlier reasons (C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 154). In the course of those earlier reasons, amongst other things, I referred to the Court’s predisposition, expressed during the hearing, to refer issues of quantum regarding the plaintiff’s successful claim of a breach of contract in relation to Building B. I also indicated that neither party raised objection to the proposed referral.

2. The parties have supplied versions of proposed short minutes and submissions.

3. Although they made some submissions on the issue, the parties agree that the question of costs (and fees) should be addressed following the completion of the reference. The submissions may be put aside until it is necessary to address them. It would be expected that the existing submissions on costs will be supplemented following the reference.

4. The parties otherwise disagreed on the appropriate orders. That leaves in issue:

1. the terms for the referral; and

2. the basis for an award of interest on the judgment.

5. In addition, Metropolitan wishes to bring an application for further security for costs and proposes a timetable to adjudicate such application. C&V contests that timetable.

Application for further security

6. In its submissions, Metropolitan identified certain grounds for why it says it should obtain further security. C&V does not resist Metropolitan bringing an application but, rather curiously, disputes the need for the Court to make directions to enable such application to be raised, contested and adjudicated.

7. The Court proposes to make the directions sought by Metropolitan to prosecute an application for further security, which, owing to other judicial commitments, will not be capable of being heard by me before 1 July 2022.

Terms for referral

8. There is substantial agreement on the terms of referral. The identity of the referee has not yet been settled, but a mechanism is put in place to resolve this question if there is dispute about who should be the referee.…