Legal Research
Cases
Re Datlas-Rahme Construction Pty Ltd

Re Datlas-Rahme Construction Pty Ltd

Case [2016] NSWSC 1833 16 December 2016

Breach of Contract

Unjust Enrichment

Compensatory Damages

Corporate Law & Governance

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Datlas-Rahme Construction Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1833
Hearing dates: 6 December 2016
Decision date: 16 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List
Before: Black J
Decision:
The Court orders that the Plaintiff’s application to set aside the creditor’s statutory demand be dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS — Winding up — Application to set aside creditor’s statutory demand under s 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where plaintiff contracted with defendant for the defendant to perform painting works on a third party’s property – where plaintiff contended defendant caused damage to third party’s property – where plaintiff contended that costs of remedying defects caused by defendant constituted offsetting claim – whether there was contract between plaintiff and third party under which plaintiff may be contractually liable to rectify damage caused by defendant – whether offsetting claim under s 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) established.
Legislation Cited: - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 1999 (NSW), ss 23, 25
- Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 459G, 459H,
- Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), ss 7, 10, 18B, 48MA, 92
Cases Cited: - Advance Ship Design Pty Ltd v DJ Ryan t/as Davies Collision Cave (1995) 16 ACSR 129
- Al Raied v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1357
- BBB Constructions Pty Ltd v Frankipile Australia Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 982; (2008) 68 ACSR 1
- Beauty Health Group Ltd v Sholl [2011] NSWSC 77
- Britten-Norman Pty Ltd v Analysis and Technology Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 344; (2013) 85 NSWLR 601
- Bull v Lee (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 362
- Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1) [1981] HCA 20; (1981) 147 CLR 246
- Collier Nominees Pty Ltd v Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Santow J, 3 July 1998, unreported)
- Diploma Construction (WA) Pty Ltd v KPA Architects Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 91
- Douglas Aerospace Pty Ltd v Indistri Engineering Albury Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 167
- J Group Constructions Pty Ltd v PGA Rendering Group Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1607
- Jackson v Conway [2000] FCA 1530
- Korda v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6; (2015) 255 CLR 62
- Macleay Nominees Pty Ltd v Belle Property East Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 743
- Malec Holdings Pty Ltd v Scotts Agencies Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] VSCA 330
- Mizzi v Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 37
- Notaras v Waverley Council [2007] NSWCA 333
- Pravenkav Group Pty Ltd v Diploma Construction (WA) Pty Ltd
- Re Australian Property Custodian Holdings Limited (in liquidation) (recs and mgrs apptd) (as responsible entity of the Prime Retirement Aged Care Property Trust) [2012] NSWSC 679
- Re Diveva Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 509
- Re Pages Sales Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 616
- Royal Premier Pty Ltd v Taleski [2001]…

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 Re Datlas-Rahme Construction Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Datlas-Rahme Construction Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1833
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1833
Decision Date: 16 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a creditor's statutory demand application against Datlas-Rahme Construction Pty Ltd, a company in financial difficulty, by the plaintiff, who had contracted the defendant for painting works on a third party's property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's work caused damage to the property and sought to set aside the statutory demand on the basis that the costs of remedying the defects constituted an offsetting claim under section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether there was a contract between the plaintiff and the third party that would make the plaintiff contractually liable to rectify the damage caused by the defendant and whether this constituted an offsetting claim under the Act.

The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether there existed a contract between the plaintiff and the third party that could impose a liability on the plaintiff to rectify the damage caused by the defendant, and if so, whether this liability could be considered an offsetting claim under section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court had to examine the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the third party, the terms of any potential contract, and the extent to which the plaintiff could be held responsible for the damages caused by the defendant.

The court found that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the third party that would impose a liability on the plaintiff to rectify the damage caused by the defendant. Consequently, the plaintiff could not establish an offsetting claim under section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The court held that the plaintiff's claim was not a valid offsetting claim because the plaintiff was not contractually liable to the third party for the defects caused by the defendant. As such, the application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application to set aside the statutory demand be dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The decision affirmed that the plaintiff could not rely on a non-existent contractual liability to the third party as a basis for setting aside the statutory demand.

Orders