District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd v Leslight (No 3) [2019] NSWDC 404 Hearing dates: 23 May 2019, 14 June 2019, 24 June 2019 (written submissions); 25 July 2019 Date of orders: 09 August 2019 Decision date: 09 August 2019 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Dicker SC DCJ Decision: (1) The parties are to bring in agreed Short Minutes of Order within 14 days reflecting these reasons.
(2) In the event that there is continued disagreement, each party should prepare orders it or he proposes with detailed calculations attached and with supporting written submissions of no more than five pages relating to the orders sought and serve such proposed orders and submissions on the legal representatives for the other party and the Associate to Dicker DCJ.
(3) There be no order as to costs in relation to the applications before the court with the intent that each party should pay its or his own costs of such applications.
(4) Liberty to apply within 14 days if a different costs order is sought to that in (3) above.Catchwords: Costs - building dispute - plaintiff successful on quantum meruit claim but not successful on contractual claim - whether there should be a costs order on discrete issues - Calderbank offer – whether there should be an indemnity costs order - appropriate costs order to be made
Interest - building dispute - whether interest should be ordered in relation to quantum merit claim - if so, from what date should interest be orderedLegislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 98, 100, 101
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), s 10
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Part 42.1Cases Cited: Baker v Towle [2008] NSWCA 73
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Cellarit Pty Ltd v Cawarrah Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 266
Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd v Leslight [2018] NSWDC 384
Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd v Leslight (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 172
Lahoud v Lahoud [2006] NSWSC 126
Leda Pty Ltd v Weerden (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 283
MPB (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657
Nadilo v Souris (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 246
Network Ten Pty Ltd v TX Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWCA 51
Nu-Line Constructions Pty Ltd v Fowler [2014] NSWCA 51
Peet Ltd v Richmond [2011] VSCA 343
Perricoota Boat Club Investments Pty Ltd v Watson [2014] NSWSC 378
Phyllis Trading Ltd v 86 Lordship Road Ltd [2001] 2 EGLR 85
The Commonwealth of Australia v SCI Operations Pty Ltd (1998) 192 CLR 285
Tjiong v Tjiong (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1981
Woollahra Municipal Council v Secure Parking Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 452
Zhang v Harmstorf (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 116Category: Principal judgment Parties: Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Brett Barry Leslight (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
J Manner (Plaintiff)
J A Darvall (Defendant)
Usher Levi (Plaintiff)
Paul Mattick & Associates (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2015/00288845
Judgment
-
This is the third reserved judgment which…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd v Leslight (No 3) 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
- [2019] NSWDC 404
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine whether the parties should bear their own costs for the applications brought before it and if there should be any indemnity costs order. It also needed to decide if an order for interest should be made in relation to the quantum meruit claim and, if so, from what date.
The court found that there was no basis for making an indemnity costs order. It reasoned that the plaintiff's quantum meruit claim was successful but the contractual claim was not. The court held that it was appropriate for the parties to bear their own costs for the applications, with liberty to apply for a different costs order within 14 days. As to interest, the court held that it should be awarded in relation to the quantum meruit claim from a particular date, which was detailed in the judgment.
The orders of the court were that the parties should prepare and exchange their proposed orders within 14 days, and in the event of continued disagreement, each party should prepare and exchange their proposed orders with supporting submissions. Each party was to bear its own costs for the applications, with liberty to apply for a different costs order within 14 days. Interest was to be ordered in relation to the quantum meruit claim from a specified date.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The parties are to bring in agreed Short Minutes of Order within 14 days reflecting these reasons.
(2) In the event that there is continued disagreement, each party should prepare orders it or he proposes with detailed calculations attached and with supporting written submissions of no more than five pages relating to the orders sought and serve such proposed orders and submissions on the legal representatives for the other party and the Associate to Dicker DCJ.
(3) There be no order as to costs in relation to the applications before the court with the intent that each party should pay its or his own costs of such applications.
(4) Liberty to apply within 14 days if a different costs order is sought to that in (3) above.
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.