JMT Builders Pty Ltd v Ryan - [2016] NTSC 6

JMT Builders Pty Ltd v. Ryan & Ors
[2016] NTSC 6
PARTIES:JMT BUILDERS PTY LTD

v
TRACY JANE RYAN
AND
GRANT GEOFFREY RYAN
AND
GTNT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:119 of 2015 (21555675)
DELIVERED:  25 January 2016
HEARING DATES:  14 January 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  MASTER LUPPINO
CATCHWORDS:
Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Process – Inherent jurisdiction of the Court to prevent abuse of its process – Categories of abuse are not closed – Principles relevant to determination of whether proceedings are an abuse of process – Proceedings issued after settlement of a dispute and before a default and only to have proceedings on foot in the event of a default – No genuine dispute – Lack of a genuine dispute renders proceedings an abuse of process.
MacDonnell Shire Council v Miller & Ors [2009] NTSC 46.
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509.

Metropolitan Bank v Pooley (1885) LR10 App Cas 210.
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256.
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251.
Sea Culture International Pty Ltd v Scoles [1991] FCA 523.

Supreme Court Rules rr23.01, 48.04
Abuse Of Process And Judicial Stays Of Criminal Proceedings, Choo, A., 2^nd Ed, Oxford University Press.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:Mr W Roper
Defendant:Mr R Perkins
Solicitors:
Plaintiff:Bowden McCormack
Defendant:Powell & Co Legal
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Lup1601
Number of pages:  10

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
JMT Builders Pty Ltd v. Ryan & Ors
[2016] NTSC 6
No. 119 of 2015 (21555675)
BETWEEN:

JMT BUILDERS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND:

TRACY JANE RYAN

First Defendant

AND:

GRANT GEOFFREY RYAN

Second Defendant

AND:

GTNT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

Third Defendant

CORAM: MASTER LUPPINO
REASONS
(Delivered 25 January 2016)

By Writ and Statement of Claim filed 10 November 2015 the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants inter alia for damages for breach of a certain building contract entered into between the parties.
The Defendants entered an Appearance on 11 November 2015.
On 12 November 2015 a notice pursuant to order 48.04 of the Supreme Court Rules issued which set an initial directions hearing for 24 November 2015.
Also on 12 November 2015, the Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the Court, with the concurrence of the solicitors for the Defendants and advised that the Writ in this matter had been filed pursuant to a Deed of Settlement entered into between the parties. A copy of the Deed was provided. It is apparent from that Deed that the dispute between the parties as pleaded in the Statement of Claim has been fully settled and the correspondence confirmed that. The Deed also provided that:-
1.The Plaintiff would file the Writ and Statement of Claim (a form of which was annexed to the Deed) and that the Defendants would then file an Appearance;
2.The Defendants would…

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 JMT Builders Pty Ltd v Ryan 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: [2016] NTSC 6
Decision Date: 25 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JMT Builders Pty Ltd v Ryan involved the plaintiff, a building company, and the defendant, an individual who had previously contracted with the plaintiff for building services. The dispute centred around allegations that the defendant had not fulfilled his contractual obligations, leading to the plaintiff issuing proceedings against the defendant after a settlement had been reached and before any default occurred. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the issuance of proceedings by the plaintiff constituted an abuse of the court's process. The court had to determine whether the proceedings were genuine or if they were issued in a manner that abused the court's process.

In assessing whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process, the court considered several principles. It noted that the categories of abuse are not closed and that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its process. The court examined whether there was a genuine dispute between the parties and whether the proceedings were issued for a collateral purpose or in bad faith. The court found that there was no genuine dispute between the parties as a settlement had already been reached. Additionally, the proceedings were issued not to resolve a genuine dispute but as a precautionary measure in case of default by the defendant. These factors led the court to conclude that the proceedings were an abuse of the court's process.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the plaintiff's proceedings were an abuse of the court's process due to the absence of a genuine dispute and the lack of any legitimate purpose for the proceedings. The court emphasised that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to prevent abuse of its process is not limited to specific categories and can be exercised where proceedings are issued in bad faith or for a collateral purpose. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding.

Orders