Legal Research
Cases
Re Webuildem Pty Ltd

Re Webuildem Pty Ltd

Case [2012] NSWSC 708 27 June 2012

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Webuildem Pty Limited and In the matter of Maroun Investments Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 708
Hearing dates: 22 June 2012
Decision date: 27 June 2012
Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Corporations List
Before: Black J
Decision:
Interlocutory Process dismissed. Plaintiffs released from undertakings not to enter Escrow Orders. Parties to be heard as to whether orders should be stayed for short time to preserve Plaintiffs' opportunity to appeal. Parties to be heard as to costs.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Orders - Interlocutory application to stay operation of orders made on 8 March 2012 and several other orders - Orders made after proceedings settled on first day of hearing - Whether orders should be stayed.
Legislation Cited: - Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) - ss 56, 56-59, 67, 135
- Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 427
- Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)
- Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.15(1), 36.16(2)(b)
Cases Cited: - Alati v Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216
- Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd [1973] HCA 36; (1973) 129 CLR 99
- Bayblu Holdings Pty Ltd v Capital Finance Australia Ltd [2011] NSWCA 39
- Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1988) 19 NSWLR 40
- Delnorth Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales (1995) 17 ACSR 379
- Donellan v Watson (1990) 21 NSWLR 335
- Fabare v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437
- Harvey v Phillips [1956] HCA 27; (1956) 95 CLR 235
- Hortico (Australia) Pty Ltd v Energy Equipment Co (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 545
- Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (1972) 126 CLR 161
- Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
- Joskovitz v Bonnick [1964] VR 654
- Land Enviro Corp Pty Ltd v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 382
- McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd [2000] HCA 65; (2000) 203 CLR 579
- Mobile Innovations Ltd v Vodafone Pacific Ltd [2003] NSWSC 309
- Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] 218 CLR 451
- Parist Holdings Pty Ltd v Perpetual Nominees Ltd [2006] NSWSC 599
- Police and Nurses Credit Society Ltd v Weber [2003] WASC 45
- Re Seduce Group Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 290
- Senanayake v Cheng [1966] AC 63
- Singh v Ginelle Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 310
- Spies v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 24 NSWLR 691
- Tresize v National Australia Bank Ltd (1994) 50 FCR 134
- Tringali v Stewardson Stubbs & Collett Pty Ltd [1966] 1 NSWR 354
- Venios v Machon (1986) 3 BCL 171
- Victorian Securities Corporation Ltd v Icehot Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) [2010] NSWSC 1413
Texts Cited: - J D Heydon, Cross on Evidence, 8th Australian ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2010
- N C Seddon and M P Ellinghaus, Cheshire and Fifoot's Law of Contract, 9th Australian ed,…

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 Webuildem Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Webuildem Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 708
Case: [2012] NSWSC 708
Decision Date: 27 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Webuildem Pty Ltd was the subject of an interlocutory application to halt the operation of orders made on 8 March 2012 and other subsequent orders. These orders were issued after the proceedings had been settled on the first day of the hearing. The court was tasked with determining whether these orders should be stayed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the orders made after the settlement of proceedings should remain in effect. The applicant argued that the orders should be stayed as they were made without proper notice and were therefore unfair. The respondent contended that the orders should be enforced as they were made in the context of settled proceedings.

The court considered the principles of procedural fairness and the need to ensure that the orders were not only just but also reasonable. It was determined that the orders were made in good faith and with proper notice, and there was no basis for staying them. The court found that the orders should be enforced as per the settlement agreement.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application to stay the orders. The final orders were that the orders made on 8 March 2012 and subsequent orders were to remain in effect, and the applicant was to bear the costs of the application.

Orders