L & W Developments Pty Ltd v Della

Case [2003] NSWCA 140
CITATION: L & W DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD v DELLA [2003] NSWCA 140 revised - 25/06/2003
HEARING DATE(S): 1, 8 May 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:
5 June 2003
JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Giles JA at 63; Santow JA at 64
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs. See par 62
CATCHWORDS: Stay of proceedings in Commercial List pending determination of related proceedings in Industrial Relations Commission - sufficiency of reasons granting stay - "justifiable sense of grievance" - whether order on same terms appropriate - temporary nature of stay - factors to be considered in exercise of discretion to grant stay (D)
LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996 ss105,106, 108A, 108B, 179
Fair Trading Act 1987 s42
CASES CITED: Beale v Government Insurance Office (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
CSR Limited v Cigna Insurance Australia Limited (1997) 189 CLR 345
Majik Markets Pty Ltd v S & M Motor Repairs Pty Ltd (No 3) unreported, 13 October 1987
Mitchforce Pty Ltd v Starkey (2002) 117 IR 122
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197
Premier Sports Australia Pty Ltd v Dodds [2001] NSWSC 707
Rexam Australia Pty Ltd v Optimum Metallising Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 916
RSL Com v Mobile Tron [2001] NSWSC 819
Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Boots Co (Australia) Pty Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 287
The Environmental Group Ltd v Croudace unreported, 7 August 1998
Tszyu v Fightvision Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 103; 104 IR 225
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538.

PARTIES :

 L & W DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD v Alain DELLA
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41116/02
COUNSEL: Appellant: S Wheelhouse
Respondent: R Butler
SOLICITORS: Appellant: Gye Associates
Respondent: Mannix Lawyers
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): CL 50143/02
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : 		Gzell J


                          CA 41116/02
                          CL 50143/02

                          MASON P
                          GILES JA
                          SANTOW JA

                          Thursday 5 June 2003

L & W DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD v Alain DELLA


Facts:

Mr Della was engaged as managing director of L & W Development Pty Ltd to supervise completion of a development project in Miranda. Construction took many months longer than expected, and - according to the appellant - the project generated a net loss of more than $3 million.

The terms of contract as to Mr Della’s remuneration are disputed. Mr Della claims he was to be paid a $50,000 annual retainer, rent on office space, and was meant to receive 10% of the profits without regard to shareholder loans. L & W Development Pty Ltd contends that Mr Della was to be paid 10% of the net profits of the project as a dividend of the shares issued to him. Given the project’s loss, it claims he is to be paid nothing.

On 10 December 2001, Mr Della brought proceedings against L & W Development Pty Ltd in the Industrial Relations Commission (the IRC proceedings), claiming a sum in excess of $2.5 million. He sought an order declaring that his contract was…

Continue reading L & W Developments Pty Ltd v Della

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
L & W Developments Pty Ltd v Della [2003] NSWCA 140
Case
[2003] NSWCA 140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

L & W Developments Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought to appeal an order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales granting a stay of proceedings in the Commercial List pending the determination of related proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission. The respondent, Della, was the party who had obtained the stay order at first instance.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in exercising their discretion to grant the stay. This involved considering whether the reasons provided for granting the stay were sufficient, whether the order was appropriate in its terms, and whether the temporary nature of the stay was adequately addressed. The Court also considered the factors relevant to the exercise of discretion in granting a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had properly exercised their discretion. The reasons provided for the stay were considered sufficient, and the order was deemed appropriate, particularly given its temporary nature. The Court applied established principles regarding the exercise of discretion to grant a stay, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of the parties and ensure justice. The Court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated a "justifiable sense of grievance" that would warrant overturning the primary judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs. See par 62

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.