| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION
No. 06058 of 2013
| METIER3 PTY LTD (ABN 31 499 541 615) | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| ENWERD PTY LTD | First Defendant |
| and | |
| S.H.L NOMINEES (1965) PTY LTD | Second Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | VICKERY J | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 MARCH 2014 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 26 MARCH 2014 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | METIER3 PTY LTD v ENWERD PTY LTD & ANOR (No 2) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VSC 138 | |
---
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 - Rule 45.05 - Application for summary judgment – Court’s discretion to make orders pursuant to Rule 45.05(8) - Proceeding commenced by originating motion – No pleadings - Summary judgment sought in circumstances where there are substantial issues in dispute – Full hearing on merits appropriate – Defendants entitled to a defence and counterclaim – Application for summary judgment dismissed - Pleadings ordered.
BUILDING CONTRACTS – Entitlement to final payment following issue of certificate of Practical Completion - Validity of certificate of Practical Completion issued under Deed of Settlement - Whether it is open to defendants to challenge validity – Doctrine of election or waiver – Challenge to validity not raised before expiration of 12-month defects period under Deed of Settlement – Obligations under Deed of Settlement – Whether Plaintiff has complied with obligations.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr G Golvan QC | Carrick Gill Smyth |
| For the Defendants | Mr M Whitten of Counsel | Arnold Bloch Liebler |
HIS HONOUR:
The Plaintiff, Metier3 Pty Ltd, by originating motion and summons on originating motion seeks relief in the form of declarations intended to substantiate its entitlement to relief and final judgment against the Defendants in the amount of $300,000 plus GST.
At a directions hearing conducted on Friday, 21 February 2014, I directed pursuant to the case management provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), that a preliminary trial of a contract construction issue be conducted on 26 February 2014, pursuant to Rule 47.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2006 (‘the Rules’).
On 26 February 2014, this proceeding was listed for preliminary determination of the following question pursuant to Rule 47.04:
Subject to clause 2E of the Deed of Settlement, whether the relevant provisions of the Deed give rise to an entitlement for the Plaintiff to be paid the final instalment of $300,000 plus GST upon the issue of a certificate of practical completion by the Superintendent.
I held in Metier 3 Pty Ltd v. Enwerd Pty Ltd & SHL Nominees1965 Pty Ltd[1] that the construction of clause 2E means that the entitlement of the Plaintiff to payment of the last instalment under the Deed of Settlement arises where a certificate of practical completion, duly issued in accordance with the terms of the Deed of Settlement, has been issued by the Superintendent.
[1][2014] VSC 80.
At paragraphs [50]-[51] of that decision, I noted the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Metier3 Pty Ltd v Enwerd Pty Ltd (No 2) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] VSC 138
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the procedural aspect first, holding that the application for summary judgment was inappropriate given the substantial issues in dispute. The court emphasised that the defendants were entitled to a defence and to raise a counterclaim. The court also noted that the defendants had not raised a challenge to the validity of the certificate of Practical Completion before the expiration of the 12-month defects period under the Deed of Settlement, potentially invoking the doctrine of election or waiver. The court found that a full hearing on the merits was necessary to resolve these complex issues. Consequently, the application for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendants were ordered to file their defence and any counterclaim within a specified time.
Given the dismissal of the summary judgment application, the court ordered that the defendants file their defence and any counterclaim within 28 days of the judgment. The case was set down for a case management conference to further determine the proceedings' progress and any additional directions necessary.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.