Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: The Owners - Strata Plan 74635 v Buildcorp Group Pty Limited [2013] NSWCA 40 Hearing dates: 25 February 2013 Decision date: 25 February 2013 Before: Allsop P at [1], [18]
Ward JA at [17]Decision: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - no question of principle Legislation Cited: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005, ss56 - 60Cases Cited: The Owners Strata Plan 56587 v Consolidated Quality Projects [2009] NSWSC 1476 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Owners - Strata Plan No 74635 (Applicant)
Buildcorp Group Pty Limited CAN 091 336 168 (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
D E Grieve QC and D Hand (Applicant)
M Ashhurst SC and M Gunning (Respondent)
Makinson & d'Apice Lawyers
BCP Lawyers & Consultants (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2012/397122 Decision under appeal
- Date of Decision:
- 2012-12-14 00:00:00
- Before:
- Ashford DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2012/186930
Judgment
ALLSOP P: This is an application for leave to appeal from orders made by a District Court Judge refusing the defendants to the proceedings below (the applicants to the proceedings here) an amendment to a defence in the District Court.
A number of issues were run in the District Court, most particularly what I will refer to as the question of service and the question of estoppel or waiver. The background to the case is that the applicants, whom I will refer to as the Owners, they being Owners of Strata Plan No 74635, entered a building contract with Buildcorp Group Pty Limited. The dispute between the parties involves disputes over entitlements to payments claimed by Buildcorp. Those competing views then find their place in the operation of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act1999 (NSW) (the "Act").
Buildcorp delivered to a Mr Kokolis, the engineer to the works, a payment claim under the Act on 29 February 2012. The ten business days for the serving of a schedule in answer expired on or about 14 March 2012. No such payment schedule in response was served. The estoppel argument was directed below to what occurred thereafter from 16 March. There is no need to deal with this in this application. Mr Grieve QC for the Owners does not press the application for leave to appeal in relation to the estoppel or waiver point.
That leaves what the parties debated before us as to the service point. It is said here, as it was said to the primary judge, that there was a point to be argued that the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read The Owners - Strata Plan 74635 v Buildcorp Group Pty Limited 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
- [2013] NSWCA 40
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment entered against Buildcorp. This involved considering whether Buildcorp had established a meritorious defence to the Owners' claim and whether it had provided a sufficient explanation for its delay in responding to the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Allsop P and Ward JA, dismissed the application for leave to appeal. While the specific reasoning is not detailed in the provided text, the outcome suggests that the Court found no error in the primary judge's decision. The note regarding the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, particularly Rule 36.16 concerning the time limit for setting aside judgments, may have been relevant to the Court's consideration of the application.
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.