Molonglo Construction Group v Mehta

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Molonglo Construction Group v Mehta

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 235

Hearing Date: 

4 June 2025

Decision Date: 

6 June 2025

Before:

Muller AJ

Decision: 

See [30]

Catchwords: 

CIVIL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – removal of proceedings to Supreme Court – application for proceedings to be consolidated or heard together – whether appropriate matters to consolidiate

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 270, 1432, 1707, 1725

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 270

Cases Cited: 

Lew v Priester [2012] VSC 57

Piscioneri v Brisciani and Reardon [2017] ACTSC 237

The Bell Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [2000] FCA 439

Parties: 

Molonglo Construction Group ( Plaintiff)

Vishal Mehta ( First Defendant)

Rashmi Mehta (Second Defendant)

Representation: 

Counsel

A Costin ( Plaintiff)

Self-represented ( First and Second Defendants)

Solicitors

Sullivans Legal Co ( Plaintiff)

Self-represented ( First and Second Defendants)

File Number:

SC 101 of 2025

MULLER AJ: 

Introduction

1․By its application lodged on 1 April 2025, the plaintiff seeks removal of proceedings CS 1/2025 (the Magistrates Court proceedings) from the Magistrates Court to the Supreme Court.

2․Further, it seeks, pursuant to r 270 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the CPR), that the Magistrates Court proceedings be consolidated, or alternatively heard together, with these Supreme Court proceedings.

3․Each of the proceedings involve the same parties in a dispute arising out of separate contracts for the construction of residential properties. The Magistrates Court proceedings relate to a property constructed in Denman, and these proceedings concern a residential property constructed in Whitlam.

4․Although the Denman property is owned by both defendants, whereas the Whitlam property is solely owned by Mr Vishal Mehta (the first defendant), both defendants are named as parties in each of the building contracts and both defendants are signatories to each of the contract documents.

5․It is agreed by all parties that both defendants and the director of the plaintiff company will be required to give evidence in each of the proceedings. It is also clear from the pleadings in each case that the Court will be called upon to determine a number of matters of substantial factual contest arising from the interaction between the parties concerning the respective building works and the variations to the originally contracted works from time to time. In those circumstances there is a real prospect of the Court in each proceeding being called upon to make findings as to credit.

6․The application to remove the Magistrates Court proceedings to the Supreme Court is opposed by the defendants.

7․Section 270 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) provides for the removal of proceedings into the Supreme Court, on conditions, or otherwise. Rule 1432 of the CPR makes provision for such removal in the same terms. The court may make an order for removal of proceedings to the Supreme Court on conditions about costs, security for the amount claimed for costs, or otherwise, that the court considers just. Rule 270 of the CPR applies…