Goodwin v Rana

Case [2019] NSWDC 247

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Goodwin v Rana [2019] NSWDC 247
Hearing dates: 7 June 2019
Date of orders: 12 June 2019
Decision date: 12 June 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Plaintiff’s amended notice of motion dismissed.
(2) Costs of this application reserved to the trial judge.
(3) Matter stood over to Friday 14 June 2019 before Gibson DCJ for the parties to hand up Consent Orders for the future conduct of these proceedings, including but not limited to a timetable for evidence, a date for mediation and/or informal settlement conference and the allocation of a hearing date.

Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – plaintiff and defendants settle proceedings by deed – plaintiff commences proceedings after defendants default in payment – defence asserts faulty workmanship and foreshadows cross-claim – plaintiff seeks summary judgment for a sum in excess of the amount in the deed – accord and satisfaction – repudiation – whether evidence sufficient for summary judgment – application for summary judgment refused
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56 – 62
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), s 18B
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28 and 42.4
Cases Cited: Bartlett v Mouncey [1998] FCA 418
Bellevarde Constructions Pty Ltd v Cosmas Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 406
Carr v J A Berriman Pty Ltd (1953) 89 CLR 327
El-Mir v Risk [2005] NSWCA 215
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hunters Hill Council v Hakim [2016] NSWSC 1598
Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Limited (2007) 233 CLR 115
Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 623
Martinez v Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1661
McDermott v Black (1940) 63 CLR 161
Osborn v McDermott t/as RA McDermott & Co & Karmine Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR 1
Pollak v National Australia Bank Limited [2002] FCAFC 55
The Craftsmen Restoration & Renovations Pty Ltd v Boland [2011] NSWCA 147
Westpac Banking Corporation v Billgate Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1447
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Plaintiff: Gregory William Goodwin
First Defendant: Rizwan Rana
Second Defendant: Nadia Rana
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr T Bland
Defendants: Mr P Santone

  Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Lawyers Plus
Defendants: Juris Australia
File Number(s): 2018/384222
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

  1. The plaintiff by amended notice of motion seeks the following orders:

  1. Leave be granted to rely upon the Amended Statement of Claim served upon the defendants’ former solicitor and the defendants personally on 6 May 2019.

  2. The court orders that service of the Amended Statement of Claim was affected on 6 May 2019.

  3. Leave be granted to rely upon the Amended Statement of Claim in this Amended Motion.

  4. Pursuant to r 14.28 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) the defence be dismissed for the facts, matters and reasons set out…

Continue reading Goodwin v Rana

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Goodwin v Rana [2019] NSWDC 247
Case
[2019] NSWDC 247
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Goodwin v Rana was before the court where the plaintiff, having settled a dispute with the defendants by deed, sought summary judgment for a sum exceeding the amount stipulated in the deed. The defendants, in their defence, contended that the plaintiff had provided faulty workmanship and indicated their intention to cross-claim. The plaintiff's motion sought to have the court grant summary judgment based on the terms of the settlement deed and the defendants' default in payment. The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to grant summary judgment and if the settlement deed constituted an accord and satisfaction or if the plaintiff had repudiated the contract.

The court considered the evidence presented and the legal arguments advanced by both parties. It found that the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis for granting summary judgment, as the defendants had raised legitimate defences related to the quality of workmanship and potential cross-claims. The court also examined the nature of the settlement deed, determining that it did not unequivocally establish an accord and satisfaction and that there was no clear repudiation by the plaintiff. Given these findings, the court concluded that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was not appropriate and dismissed the amended notice of motion.

The orders of the court were to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended notice of motion for summary judgment, reserve the costs of the application to the trial judge, and stand over the matter for the parties to present Consent Orders for the future conduct of the proceedings. These orders included the establishment of a timetable for evidence, a date for mediation or an informal settlement conference, and the allocation of a hearing date. This decision ensures that the court maintains oversight over the progression of the case and allows for a fair resolution of the dispute between the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Plaintiff’s amended notice of motion dismissed.

(2) Costs of this application reserved to the trial judge.

(3) Matter stood over to Friday 14 June 2019 before Gibson DCJ for the parties to hand up Consent Orders for the future conduct of these proceedings, including but not limited to a timetable for evidence, a date for mediation and/or informal settlement conference and the allocation of a hearing date.

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.