Low v MCC Pty Ltd & Ors

Case [2018] QSC 6


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Low v MCC Pty Ltd & Ors; MCC Pty Ltd v Low [2018] QSC 6

PARTIES:

In proceeding BS11709 of 2017:

ALVIN LOW
(applicant)
v
MCC PTY LTD
ACN 002 243 263
(first respondent)
RICHARD ATKIN
Registered Adjudicator No. J1182971
(second respondent)
QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION
(third respondent)

In proceeding BS12115 of 2017:

MCC PTY LTD
ACN 002 243 263
(applicant)
v
ALVIN LOW

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 11709 of 2017
SC No 12115 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application and Originating Application

DELIVERED ON:

29 January 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 December 2017

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

On the application in proceeding BS11709 of 2017:

Upon the applicant giving the usual undertaking as to damages and undertaking to lodge with the registrar of the court within 3 business days an unconditional bank guarantee of payment of the sum of $340,000 to the respondent in a form satisfactory to the registrar, the orders of the court are as follows:

1.   Until further order the first defendant is restrained from enforcing adjudication decision number 2983320 made by the second defendant on 13 October 2017, the adjudication certificate filed on 31 October 2017 as a judgment in proceeding 4164 of 2017 in the District Court of Queensland in the sum of $210,331.32 and the enforcement warrant issued in that proceeding on 13 November 2017.

2.   Until further order the first defendant is restrained from enforcing adjudication decision number 298427 made by the second defendant on 13 October 2017 and the adjudication certificate filed on 31 October 2017 as a judgment in proceeding 4166 of 2017 in the District Court of Queensland in the sum of $90,529.72 and the enforcement warrant issued in that proceeding on 13 November 2017.

3.   Costs of the application and the hearing of 8 December 2017 are reserved.

4.   Liberty to apply.

On the originating application in proceeding BS12115 of 2017 the order of the court is that:

1.   The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

2.   Costs of the application and the hearing of 8 December 2017 are reserved.

3.   Liberty to apply.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE GENERALLY – where the applicant is seeking an injunction to restrain enforcement of adjudicator’s decisions under BCIPA filed as judgments in the District Court of Queensland – where the applicant has offered to undertake to provide a bank guarantee in to court sufficient to cover the amount of the adjudicator’s decisions – whether a “prima facie” case has been shown by the applicant – whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction

COUNSEL: L Campbell for the applicant
P Hay for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Case Legal Pty Ltd for the applicant
Tucker Cowen for the respondent
  1. These cross applications stem from a dispute as to the validity of two payment claims and adjudication decisions[1] made under the Building and Construction Industry…

Continue reading Low v MCC Pty Ltd & Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Low v MCC Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QSC 6
Case
[2018] QSC 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Low sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the enforcement of two adjudication decisions under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2009 (Qld) which had been filed as judgments in the District Court of Queensland. The respondent, MCC, opposed the application. The applicant had offered to provide a bank guarantee to cover the amount of the adjudicator’s decisions. The court had to decide whether a prima facie case had been made out for an interlocutory injunction and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction.

The court noted that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction as they had offered to provide a bank guarantee. The court also noted that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction as the applicant had demonstrated that the potential harm to them if the injunction was not granted outweighed the potential harm to the respondent if the injunction was granted. The court also noted that the applicant had demonstrated that they had a substantial question to be tried and that the injunctive relief sought was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.

Accordingly, the court granted the application and restrained the first defendant from enforcing the adjudication decisions until further order. The court also ordered that the applicant provide an unconditional bank guarantee within three business days. The costs of the application and the hearing were reserved, and liberty to apply was granted. The originating application was adjourned to a date to be fixed, and the costs of the application and the hearing were reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

On the application in proceeding BS11709 of 2017:

Upon the applicant giving the usual undertaking as to damages and undertaking to lodge with the registrar of the court within 3 business days an unconditional bank guarantee of payment of the sum of $340,000 to the respondent in a form satisfactory to the registrar, the orders of the court are as follows:

1. Until further order the first defendant is restrained from enforcing adjudication decision number 2983320 made by the second defendant on 13 October 2017, the adjudication certificate filed on 31 October 2017 as a judgment in proceeding 4164 of 2017 in the District Court of Queensland in the sum of $210,331.32 and the enforcement warrant issued in that proceeding on 13 November 2017.

2. Until further order the first defendant is restrained from enforcing adjudication decision number 298427 made by the second defendant on 13 October 2017 and the adjudication certificate filed on 31 October 2017 as a judgment in proceeding 4166 of 2017 in the District Court of Queensland in the sum of $90,529.72 and the enforcement warrant issued in that proceeding on 13 November 2017.

3. Costs of the application and the hearing of 8 December 2017 are reserved.

4. Liberty to apply.

On the originating application in proceeding BS12115 of 2017 the order of the court is that:

1. The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

2. Costs of the application and the hearing of 8 December 2017 are reserved.

3. Liberty to apply.

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.