Roberts v Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd

Case [2022] NSWCA 103


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Roberts v Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 103
Hearing dates: 20 June 2022
Date of orders: 20 June 2022
Decision date: 20 June 2022
Before: Gleeson JA
Decision:

Notice of motion filed 1 June 2022 is dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay pending appeal – where no arguable grounds of appeal – where no evidence as to applicant’s financial means

Legislation Cited:

Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW), ss 36, 37

Cases Cited:

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] NSWCA 130

Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685

Kalifair Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 737; [2002] NSWCA 383

TCN Channel 9 Pty Limited v Antoniadis (No 2) (1999) 48 NSWLR 381

Vaughan v Dawson [2008] NSWCA 169

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Daniel Roberts (Self-represented – Applicant)
Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Roberts (Self-represented – Applicant)
R Sud (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Daniel Roberts (self-represented – Applicant)
Richard Green Construction Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/151935
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity Division
Citation:

[2022] NSWSC 624

Date of Decision:
19 May 2022
Before:
Stevenson J
File Number(s):
2018/260981

Judgment

  1. GLEESON JA: Application is made by Daniel Roberts for a stay pending appeal concerning a judgment of Stevenson J given on 19 May 2022 and orders made on 25 May 2022: Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd atf Jesmond Unit Trust v DSD Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] NSWSC 624. Those orders were (1) judgment for Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd atf Jesmond Unit Trust (Goodwin) against Mr Roberts in the sum of $948,820.59; and (2) Mr Roberts pay Goodwin’s costs of the proceedings assessed on the ordinary basis up to 6 August 2021 and assessed on an indemnity basis from 7 August 2021.

Background

  1. The proceedings below involved two claims by Goodwin against Mr Roberts. First, a claim for damage to buildings and removal of materials, fixtures and fittings that had been incorporated into the buildings on land owned by Goodwin in Jesmond, close to the campus of the University of Newcastle. Second, a claim for damages for breach of statutory duty under s 37 of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (the DBP Act) to avoid economic loss caused by identified defects in the building on the land arising from the construction work. Goodwin’s case was that Mr Roberts had carried out “construction work” on the site for the purposes of s 37 of the DBP Act, as he relevantly administered the building contract on behalf of the builder, DSD Builders Pty Ltd, which had been engaged by Goodwin to construct three residential boarding houses on the site, and that he controlled the carrying out of the construction work on the site on behalf of DSD.

  2. The primary judge found that Mr Roberts caused damage and did remove materials,…

Continue reading Roberts v Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Roberts v Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 103
Case
[2022] NSWCA 103
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Roberts v Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd*, the applicant sought a stay of execution of a judgment pending an appeal. The respondent was Goodwin Street Developments Pty Ltd. The application was heard by Gleeson JA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of execution. This involved determining whether there were arguable grounds of appeal and whether the applicant had provided evidence of their financial means, which is a relevant consideration in such applications.

Gleeson JA dismissed the application, finding that there were no arguable grounds of appeal. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to provide any evidence regarding their financial means, which is a necessary component for demonstrating that a stay is warranted. The Court applied the principles that govern applications for a stay pending appeal, requiring a demonstration of both arguable grounds and a compelling reason for the stay, often linked to the applicant's financial position.

Consequently, the notice of motion filed on 1 June 2022 was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Notice of motion filed 1 June 2022 is dismissed with costs.

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.