Legal Research
Cases
Marques Group Pty Ltd v Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd

Marques Group Pty Ltd v Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd

Case [2023] NSWSC 625 13 June 2023

Summary Judgment

Misrepresentation

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Marques Group Pty Ltd v Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 625
Hearing dates: 21 April 2023
Date of orders: 13 June 2023
Decision date: 13 June 2023
Jurisdiction: Equity - Technology and Construction List
Before: Rees J
Decision:
Motion dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary disposal — security of payment (SOPA) — principles at [14]-[17] — summary judgment sought in the amount of payment schedules as a statutory debt — defendant claims payment schedules only issued as a consequence of plaintiff’s misleading and deceptive representations in subcontractor’s statement as to payment of employees and solvency — Bitannia v Parkline Constructions — defence not so clearly untenable that it cannot possibly succeed.

Legislation Cited:
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law

Cases Cited:
Aalborg CSP A/S v Ottoway Engineering Pty Ltd (2017) 129 SASR 283; [2017] SASCFC 158
Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; [2000] HCA 41
Bitannia Pty Ltd v Parkline Constructions Pty Ltd (2006) 67 NSWLR 9
Costain Australia v State Superannuation Board (Supreme Court (NSW), Brownie J, 22 February 1991, unrep)
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Ke Qin Ren v Hong Jiang (2014) 104 ACSR 149; [2014] NSWCA 388
Kitchen Xchange v Formacon Building Services [2014] NSWSC 1602
Neumann Contractors Pty Ltd v Traspunt No 5 Pty Ltd [2011] 2 Qd R 114
Ottavio v Hayvio Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1125
Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd (2018) 264 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 4
RJ Neller Building Pty Ltd v Ainsworth [2009] 1 Qd R 390
Silverton Ltd v Harvey [1975] 1 NSWLR 659
Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd v Lewence Construction Pty Ltd (2016) 260 CLR 340; [2016] HCA 52
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118
TFM Epping Land Pty Ltd v Decon Australia Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 93
Vannella Pty Limited v TFM Epping Land Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1379
Winslow Constructors Pty Ltd v John Holland Rail Pty Ltd [2008] VCC 1491

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Marques Group Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Shipway / Mr G Campbell (Plaintiff)
Mr D Hume (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Paramonte Legal (Plaintiff)
Salim Rutherford Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/386339

Judgment

HER HONOUR: The plaintiff subcontractor, Marques Group Pty Ltd, seeks summary judgment against the defendant contractor, Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd, in respect of two payment schedules served under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOPA).

Facts

The subcontractor had two construction contracts with the contractor, to provide formwork on projects in Woolooware and Parramatta for $22.7 million and $14.665 million respectively. The subcontracts were…

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.

Continue reading Marques Group Pty Ltd v Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Marques Group Pty Ltd v Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 625
Case: [2023] NSWSC 625
Decision Date: 13 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Marques Group Pty Ltd v Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning the enforcement of statutory debt under the Security of Payment Act 2017 (Cth). Marques Group, the plaintiff, sought summary judgment to recover amounts detailed in payment schedules issued to Parkview Constructions, the defendant. Parkview Constructions contested the claim, asserting that the payment schedules were issued only as a consequence of misleading and deceptive conduct by Marques Group. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the statutory debt under the Security of Payment Act was payable and whether the defence raised by Parkview Constructions was such that it could not succeed. Marques Group argued that the statutory debt should be enforced as per the Act's provisions. Parkview Constructions, on the other hand, contended that the payment schedules were issued under duress due to misleading and deceptive conduct by Marques Group, which should preclude enforcement of the debt.

The court examined the principles set out in Bitannia v Parkline Constructions, which address the circumstances under which a defendant's defence might be considered untenable. The court held that Parkview Constructions' defence was not so clearly untenable that it could not possibly succeed. The court found that there were genuine issues of fact and law that needed to be resolved before the statutory debt could be enforced, and thus, summary judgment was not appropriate.

The court ordered that the application for summary judgment be dismissed. The case was to proceed to a full hearing to determine the merits of Parkview Constructions' defence and whether the statutory debt was payable. The court's decision underscored the importance of thorough factual and legal examination in security of payment disputes.

Orders