Legal Research
Cases
United Crib Blocks Construction Pty Ltd v Asmaro

United Crib Blocks Construction Pty Ltd v Asmaro

Link copied

Case Copied 3 October 2025 46 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: United Crib Blocks Construction Pty Ltd v Asmaro [2025] NSWSC 1156
Hearing dates: 1 August 2025
Date of orders: 3 October 2025
Decision date: 03 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Bennett J
Decision:
(1)   The Notice of Motion filed on 29 November 2024 is dismissed.
(2)   The proceedings are listed before the Registrar in Equity on 20 October 2025.
(3)   The costs of the Notice of Motion be costs in the cause.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Notices to produce — Before hearing — Practice Note SC Eq 11 — Application to set aside — Whether practice notes have the status of statutory rules — Whether notice to produce issued by the plaintiff to the defendants subverts the operation of Practice Note SC Eq 11

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 15
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 124
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 40, 41
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 34.2(1), 42.7(1)

Cases Cited:
Australian Executor Trustees Ltd v Pachkovski [2011] NSWCA 23
Bauen Constructions Pty Limited v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWSC 684
Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Limited v HBO+DC Pty Limited [2001] NSWSC 821
Broadway Plaza Investments Pty Ltd v Broadway Plaza Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 410
Danihel v Manning [2012] NSWSC 556
Health Administration Corporation v Toll Global Forwarding Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 285
His Eminence Metropolitan Petar, Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church of Australia and New Zealand v The Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 142
In the matter of Mempoll Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1057
In the matter of Regional Express Holdings Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2025] NSWSC 499
International Management Group of America Pty Ltd v Media Niugini Ltd (t/as EMTV) (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 919
Leighton International v Hodges [2012] NSWSC 458
Marcos Accountants Pty Ltd v Nigtol Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 909
Pallas v Lendlease Corporation Limited (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 7
Re Estates Brooker-Pain and Soulos [2019] NSWSC 671
Secretary of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCA 145
Simson v Wotif.com Holdings Limited [2013] NSWSC 1809
Skytraders Pty Ltd v Meyer [2023] NSWSC 857
The Owners – Strata Plan No 76902 v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWSC 528
The Owners Strata Plan 69567 v Baseline Constructions Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 502
Wang v Cai (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1268
Welzel v Francis (2010) 77 NSWLR 92; [2010] NSWSC 75
Wilson v Gillies (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 658

Texts Cited:
Practice Note SC Eq 11

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties:
United Crib Blocks Construction Pty Ltd (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Namir Asmaro (First Defendant/First Applicant)
Australian Retaining Technologies Pty Ltd (Second Defendant/Second Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S McIntosh (Plaintiff/Respondent)
A Maroya (Defendants/Applicants)
Solicitors:
Diamond Conway (Plaintiff/Respondent)
Sorensen and Brown (Defendants/Applicants)

File Number(s): 2024/00186382
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Background

By a Notice of Motion filed on 29 November 2024, the first and second defendants and applicants…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read United Crib Blocks Construction Pty Ltd v Asmaro 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: [2025] NSWSC 1156
Decision Date: 03 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, United Crib Blocks Construction Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against Asmaro, seeking a declaration, an injunction, and damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. The defendants, in turn, filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff. The defendants applied to set aside a notice to produce documents issued by the plaintiff prior to the hearing. The core issue before the court was whether the practice notes issued by the Supreme Court have the force of statutory rules and, if so, whether the notice to produce issued by the plaintiff violated the provisions of Practice Note SC Eq 11.

The court considered whether the practice notes could be regarded as statutory rules and thus had the authority to regulate procedure in the Supreme Court. The court found that practice notes, while not statutory rules themselves, are issued under the authority of the Supreme Court Act and are binding on parties and their legal representatives. Consequently, they possess the status of rules of court and must be followed. Regarding the notice to produce, the court held that the plaintiff's notice contravened Practice Note SC Eq 11, which mandates that all notices to produce must be issued no later than seven days before the hearing. The court further noted that the notice to produce in question was issued just two days before the hearing, thus breaching the practice note.

The court concluded that the notice to produce issued by the plaintiff was invalid because it failed to comply with Practice Note SC Eq 11. Consequently, the application to set aside the notice was successful. The court ordered that the notice to produce issued by the plaintiff be set aside, and it directed the parties to adhere to the practice note in future proceedings. This decision underscored the importance of strictly following the practice notes issued by the Supreme Court to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency in litigation.

Orders