Reported Decision:
62 NSWLR 385
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Falgat Constructions Pty Ltd v Equity Australia Corporation Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 49
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.HEARING DATE(S): 3 March 2005
JUDGMENT DATE:
3 March 2005JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Santow JA at 33; Pearlman AJA at 34
DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted subject to the notice of appeal being filed within 14 days if not already filed.; 2. Appeal allowed.; 3. The injunction granted by Naughton DCJ on 26 November 2004 is dissolved.; 4. The notice of motion of 12 November 2004 is dismissed with costs.; 5. The opponent is to pay the claimant's costs of the proceedings in this Court and is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund if qualified.
CATCHWORDS: BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS - effect of statutory remedies under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY - Statutory remedies of builder - whether concurrent pursuit of statutory and common law remedies permissible - INJUNCTIONS - anti-suit - whether concurrent pursuit of statutory and common law remedies permissible under statute - whether vexatious or oppressive - D
LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
CASES CITED: Toubia v Schwenke (2002) 54 NSWLR 46
PARTIES: Falgat Constructions Pty Ltd (Claimant)
Equity Australia Corporation Pty Ltd (Opponent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41052/04
COUNSEL: J J Graves SC/F Clark (Claimant)
G Sirtes (Opponent)SOLICITORS: Julie A Orsini (Claimant)
Stephen Wawn & Associates (Opponent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 1429/04
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Naughton DCJ
CA 41052/04
3 MARCH 2005HANDLEY JA
SANTOW JA
PEARLMAN AJA
BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS – effect of statutory remedies under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY – statutory remedies of builder – whether concurrent pursuit of statutory and common law remedies permissible
INJUNCTIONS – anti-suit – whether concurrent pursuit of statutory and common law remedies permissible under statute – whether vexatious or oppressive
The builder sued the proprietor in the District Court for debt and damages under a contract for the construction of a residential building. The action was stayed pending provision of security of costs. The builder then commenced proceedings under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (the Act). A District Court judge granted an anti-suit injunction under s 46 of the District Court Act restraining the builder from pursuing its remedies under the Act. The builder applied for leave to appeal. HELD: (1) Under the Act the statutory rights are only adjudicated on an interim basis and as such they supplement the rights of the parties under the general law. Consecutive proceedings under the Act and the general law are clearly permissible. In this case the concurrent statutory claim was not vexatious and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Falgat Constructions Pty Ltd v Equity Australia Corp 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] NSWCA 49
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Act permitted a party to pursue both statutory remedies under the Act and common law remedies concurrently, and if so, whether such concurrent pursuit could be restrained by an anti-suit injunction on the grounds of being vexatious or oppressive. The court was required to consider the interplay between the statutory scheme designed to facilitate rapid payment in the building industry and the traditional common law rights available to parties under a contract.
The Court of Appeal held that the Act was designed to provide a swift and efficient mechanism for payment and did not preclude a claimant from pursuing common law remedies. The court reasoned that the statutory regime was intended to operate in parallel with, rather than in substitution for, existing common law rights. Therefore, the concurrent pursuit of both statutory and common law remedies was not inherently vexatious or oppressive. The injunction granted by the primary judge was dissolved, and the opponent's notice of motion was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal granted subject to the notice of appeal being filed within 14 days if not already filed.; 2. Appeal allowed.; 3. The injunction granted by Naughton DCJ on 26 November 2004 is dissolved.; 4. The notice of motion of 12 November 2004 is dismissed with costs.; 5. The opponent is to pay the claimant's costs of the proceedings in this Court and is to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund if qualified.
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.