District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Robust Builders Pty Ltd v Barai & Anor (No.2) [2023] NSWDC 372 Hearing dates: 22 August 2023 Date of orders: 22 August 2023 Decision date: 22 August 2023 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 20
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for builder to call witness to give oral evidence – prior case management directions for evidence to be given by affidavit – discretionary considerations
Legislation Cited: Nil
Cases Cited: Nil
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Robust Builders Pty Ltd (plaintiff/cross-defendant)
Mr P Barai (defendant/cross-claimant 1)
Mrs F Mahjabeen (defendant/cross-claimant 2)Representation: Mr D Lambley (solicitor) for the defendants/cross-claimant
Mr R Mehndiratta (as director of and for the plaintiff/cross-defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/00259451 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
This proceeding should concern a straightforward contest between a builder suing for invoices which he says are unpaid (and the value of equipment not restored) under a written contract entered into with owners in 2016 and the owners’ cross claim for the damages associated with allegedly incomplete and defective works.
-
The proceeding commenced nearly five years ago to the present day.
-
A difficulty affecting the progress of the proceedings is a lack of representation of the builder; although I note that the builder was legally represented when it filed an Amended Statement of Claim in May 2020.
-
Nevertheless, part of the delay was also attributable to the time spent by the parties’ preparing their evidence. In that regard, it is patently clear from the Court file that the parties have been directed to serve lay and expert evidence in written form. This appears to have been done at staggered intervals, to reflect the builder's claim and the owner's cross claim. In relation to the builder, express directions were made for it to serve evidence on 30 June 2022 and 2 February 2023, to take only two examples.
-
The proceeding was fixed for hearing in the May 2023 sittings of the Parramatta Civil List, but it was vacated. On 8 May 2023, the matter was fixed for hearing to the August 2023 Civil Sittings List with an estimate of a (single) day plus.
-
When the matter was before me for call-over at the commencement of the Parramatta Civil Sittings List for August 2023, Mr Mehndiratta, director of the plaintiff, and who was only just recently supplied an affidavit proving his authority to act for the builder, verbally intimated that he would like to call as a witness for the builder, Ms Sanya Devi, who he says was an employee of the builder and who dealt with the owners. (In affidavits prepared by the owners, she was identified as the site supervisor).
-
Mr Mehndiratta prepared an affidavit setting out the reasons for why he now wanted to call Ms Devi. The reasons that appear from that affidavit may be summarised as follows:
she can give relevant evidence;
she could not give evidence earlier because of the ill health of her mother and her…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Robust Builders Pty Ltd v Barai & Anor (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
- [2023] NSWDC 372
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the builder could deviate from the prior case management directions that required evidence to be given by affidavit. The court was required to consider the discretionary factors relevant to the decision, including the need to ensure that justice is done between the parties, the fairness of the application, and any prejudice that might result to either party if the application were granted or refused. The court also needed to assess the potential impact of the builder's application on the efficiency and expeditious resolution of the proceedings.
In determining the matter, the court noted that while the general preference is for evidence to be given by affidavit, there are circumstances in which a party may be permitted to deviate from this requirement. The court considered the builder's reasons for seeking to call the witness to give oral evidence, including the potential for the witness to provide clarification or expand upon matters raised in the affidavit. The court also took into account the homeowner's opposition to the application and the potential for further delay and expense if the application were granted. Ultimately, the court found that the builder's application should be refused, as the interests of justice did not require a departure from the prior case management directions.
The final orders of the court were that the builder's application to call the witness to give oral evidence be refused. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to case management directions and the need to ensure that proceedings are resolved efficiently and expeditiously. The court also noted that any failure to comply with case management directions may result in adverse consequences for the party seeking to deviate from those directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraph 20
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.