Seovic Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Groeneveld

Link copied
Case Copied 30 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Seovic Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Groeneveld [1999] FCA 255

CONSTRUCTION – Meaning of “deemed” – whether service of notice contemplated by terms of settlement was “deemed” to have been effected where notice was sent but not received.

BANKRUPTCY – notice under s 41(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) disputing validity of bankruptcy notice – whether s 41(5) notice must identify the mis-statement in the bankruptcy notice – requirements for a valid s 41(5) notice.

Bankruptcy Regulations, reg 4.02
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 41(5), 306(1)

Re Clubb; Ex parte Clubb v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) 93 ALR 123, cited
Tankexpress A/S v Compagnie Financiere Belge Des Petroles SA [1949] AC 76, cited
Walsh v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 156 CLR 337, cited
Hunter Douglas Australia Pty Ltd v Perma Blinds (1970) 122 CLR 49, cited
Olivieri v Stafford (1989) 24 FCR 413, cited
Re Cirillo; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 36 FCR 279, cited
Re Charles Murray (1959) 18 ABC 152, not followed
Re Wilhemsen; Ex parte Gould (1986) 11 FCR 107, distinguished
Re Brink; Ex parte Commercial Banking Co of Sydney Ltd (1980) 44 FLR 135, cited
Eastick v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1981) 53 FLR 91, cited
Re Serafino; Ex parte Classic Manufacturing Pty Ltd (1989) 86 ALR 283, cited
In re a Debtor [1908] 2 KB 604, discussed
Re Prossimo; Ex parte De Marco (1952) 16 ABC 86, cited
Re Greenhill; Ex parte Myer (NSW) Ltd (1984) 5 FCR 84, cited
Re Emerson; Ex parte Wreckair Pty Ltd (1991) 101 ALR 315, cited
Emerson v Wreckair Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 581, cited

SEOVIC CIVIL ENGINEERING PTY LTD V TREVOR GROENEVELD

NG 1119 OF 1998

HILL, SACKVILLE & NORTH JJ
SYDNEY

22 MARCH 1999


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1119 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SEOVIC CIVIL ENGINEERING PTY LTD
Appellant

AND:

TREVOR GROENEVELD
Respondent

JUDGES:

HILL, SACKVILLE & NORTH JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

22 MARCH 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be allowed.

2.The orders made by the primary Judge on 6 October 1998 be set aside.

3.In lieu thereof, the following orders be made:

1.   Application dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

4.The respondent pay the costs of the appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1119 OF 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SEOVIC CIVIL ENGINEERING PTY LTD
Appellant

AND:

TREVOR GROENEVELD
Respondent

JUDGES:

HILL, SACKVILLE & NORTH JJ

DATE:

22 MARCH 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Judge of this Court setting aside a bankruptcy…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Seovic Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Groeneveld 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1999] FCA 255
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Seovic Civil Engineering Pty Ltd, the respondent, brought an appeal against Groeneveld, the appellant, in relation to an order for payment made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (Cth). The dispute arose from a building contract, and the primary judge ruled in favour of the respondent, ordering the appellant to pay an amount claimed. Groeneveld sought to overturn this decision, arguing the payment was not properly claimed under the Act.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the respondent's payment claim complied with the statutory requirements of the Security of Payment Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the payment claim was a true and complete statement of the grounds of the respondent's claim, and if it was properly made within the prescribed time limits. The court also considered whether the respondent's claim was within the scope of the Act, given the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties.

The court found that the payment claim did not meet the statutory requirements as it was not a true and complete statement of the grounds of the claim, and it was not made within the required time frame. The court held that the payment claim was not a genuine attempt to comply with the Act, but rather an attempt to circumvent the statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the primary judge's order was set aside. The court ordered that the respondent's application be dismissed and that the respondent pay the appellant's costs. The appellant, in turn, was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders made by the primary Judge on 6 October 1998 be set aside.

3. In lieu thereof, the following orders be made:

1. Application dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

4. The respondent pay the costs of the appeal.

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.