GROUNDED CONSTRUCTION GROUP PTY LTD -v- EASY STAY MINING ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD [2017] WADC 136

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2017] WADC 136
Case No:	CIVO:119/2017	Heard:	12 OCTOBER 2017
Coram:	STAUDE DCJ	Delivered:	20/10/17
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applications to allow objection to debt appropriation orders, alternatively to cancel stay or amend orders, be dismissed Applications to suspend debt appropriation orders dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	GROUNDED CONSTRUCTION GROUP PTY LTD EASY STAY MINING ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD MOUNT MORGANS WA MINING PTY LTD OCS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD GROUNDED CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Debt appropriation orders Civil Judgment Enforcement Act 2004 Whether objection lodged out of time is valid Whether debt appropriation orders based on adjudication determination pursuant to Construction Contracts Act 2004 should be suspended pending judicial review Whether application to suspend is an abuse of process where Supreme Court has refused a stay of enforcement
Legislation:	Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 Construction Contracts Act 2004 Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)
Case References:	Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212 Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2003] WASCA 307; (2003) 28 WAR 308 Easy Stay Mining Accommodation Pty Ltd v Faigen [2017] WASC 266 Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404 Jackson v Goldsmith [1950] 81 CLR 446 Ladang Jalong (Australia) Pty Ltd v Callander [2005] WASCA 203 Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 222 Reichel v Magrath (1889) 14 App Cas 665 Sea Culture International Pty Ltd v Scoles [1991] FCA 523; (1991) 32 FCR 275 Sheraz Pty Ltd v Vegas Enterprises Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 4 Stewart v Biodiesel Producers Ltd [2009] WASC 145 Willoughby v Clayton Utz [No 2] [2009] WASCA 29

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : GROUNDED CONSTRUCTION GROUP PTY LTD -v- EASY STAY MINING ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD [2017] WADC 136 CORAM : STAUDE DCJ HEARD : 12 OCTOBER 2017 DELIVERED : 20 OCTOBER 2017 FILE NO/S : CIVO 119 of 2017 BETWEEN : GROUNDED CONSTRUCTION GROUP PTY LTD

Judgment creditor

AND

EASY STAY MINING ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD

Judgment debtor

MOUNT MORGANS WA MINING PTY LTD

Third person

OCS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Other person

FILE NO/S : CIVO 120 of 2017 BETWEEN : GROUNDED CONSTRUCTION GROUP PTY LTD

Judgment creditor

AND

EASY STAY MINING ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD

Judgment debtor

MOUNT MORGANS WA MINING PTY LTD

Third person

OCS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Other person

FILE NO/S : CIVO 121 of 2017 BETWEEN : GROUNDED CONSTRUCTION GROUP PTY LTD

Judgment creditor

AND

EASY STAY MINING ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD

Judgment debtor

MOUNT MORGANS WA MINING PTY LTD

Third person

OCS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Other person

FILE NO/S : CIVO 122 of 2017 BETWEEN : GROUNDED CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD

Judgment creditor

AND

EASY STAY MINING ACCOMMODATION PTY LTD

Judgment debtor

MOUNT MORGANS WA MINING PTY LTD

Third person

OCS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD

Other…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grounded Construction Group Pty Ltd v Easy Stay Mining Accom... 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: [2017] WADC 136
Decision Date: 20 OCTOBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grounded Construction Group Pty Ltd sought to enforce a debt appropriation order against Easy Stay Mining Accommodation Pty Ltd. The order was based on a determination made by an adjudicator under the Construction Contracts Act 2004. Easy Stay Mining Accommodation Pty Ltd objected to the enforcement, arguing that the order was invalid due to procedural issues and should be suspended pending judicial review. The Supreme Court was asked to determine the validity of the objection, the appropriateness of suspending the order pending review, and the abuse of process in the application to suspend.

The court considered whether the objection was lodged within the required time frame and whether it was valid despite being late. It also examined whether the application to suspend the enforcement of the debt appropriation order was an abuse of process, given that the Supreme Court had already refused a stay of enforcement. Furthermore, the court evaluated the circumstances under which such orders should be suspended pending judicial review.

The court found that the objection was lodged beyond the permitted time, rendering it invalid. The court held that the application to suspend the enforcement of the debt appropriation order was not an abuse of process, but that such orders should not be suspended pending judicial review unless exceptional circumstances exist. The court concluded that no exceptional circumstances were present in this case, and therefore dismissed the applications to allow the objection, to cancel the stay or amend the orders, and to suspend the debt appropriation orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications to allow objection to debt appropriation orders, alternatively to cancel stay or amend orders, be dismissed

Applications to suspend debt appropriation orders dismissed

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.