SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Vadasz v Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 261
PARTIES:
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER VADASZ TRADING AS AUSTRALIAN PILING COMPANY
(ABN 70 564 737 20 5)
Plaintiff
v
BLOOMER CONSTRUCTIONS (QLD) PTY LIMITED
(ACN 071 344 100)
Defendant
FILE NO/S:
BS6628/09 and BS6449/09
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Applications
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
3 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
2 September 2009
JUDGE:
Douglas J
ORDER:
[1] Dismiss the defendant’s application for a stay of the judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $415,079.50 obtained pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004;
[2] Order that the sum of $430,498.76 paid into court by the defendant pursuant to the consent order dated 23 June 2009 and any accretions thereon be paid out as to $65,224.00 to Independent Reinforcing Supplies Pty Ltd and, as to the balance, to the solicitors for the plaintiff, on their undertaking to pay the other two creditors referred to in the proceedings, Wagners Concreting Pty Ltd and Dellit Concreting, within 48 hours of receipt of the funds.
[3] Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to each application in matter 6628 of 2009;
[4] Further order that the applicant, Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd, pay the second respondent’s, Michael Christopher Vadasz’s, costs of and incidental to the application in BS6449 of 2009.
[5] Further order in matter BS6449 of 2009 that paragraph 1 of the order made by consent before the Chief Justice on 23 June 2009 be dissolved.
CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACT — BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — where plaintiff has recovered adjudication determination and judgment against defendant — where plaintiff is indebted to subcontractors and does not fully reveal his financial circumstances — where defendant asserts cross-claim for damages and defective works — defendant seeks stay and retention of money paid into Court by it — whether refusal of stay will cause irreparable prejudice.
Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 s 100
Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v O’Sullivan & Anor [2009] QSC 220, referred.
Grosvenor Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd (In administration) v Musico [2004] NSWSC 344, followed.
Herscho v Expile Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 468, followed.
McLaughlin’s Family Restaurant v Cordukes Ltd [2004] NSWCA 447, followed.
Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority v McDonald Keen Group Ltd Pty [2009] QSC 165, followed.
RJ Neller Building Pty Ltd v Ainsworth [2008] QCA 397, applied.
Specialised Explosives Blasting & Training Pty Ltd v Huddy’s Plant Hire Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 254, applied.
Taylor Projects Group Pty Ltd v Brick Dept Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 571, applied.
Veolia Water Solutions v Kruger Engineering [No 3] [2007] NSWSC 459, followed.COUNSEL:
Mr J B Sweeney for the plaintiff
Mr M M Stewart SC and Mr G D Beacham for the defendantSOLICITORS:
Michael Sing Lawyers for the plaintiff
Romans and Romans Lawyers for the defendant
The plaintiff, Mr Vadasz, applies for an order that a sum…
Continue reading Vadasz v Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Vadasz v Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 261
- Case
- [2009] QSC 261
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court found that Bloomer Constructions had not demonstrated that the refusal of a stay would result in irreparable prejudice. Bloomer Constructions had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for defective works, and their cross-claim was therefore dismissed. The court also considered the equities of the situation, including Vadasz's financial situation and the amount of money at stake. The court concluded that the refusal of a stay would not cause irreparable prejudice to Bloomer Constructions, and the application for a stay was dismissed.
In its orders, the court dismissed Bloomer Constructions' application for a stay of the judgment in favour of Vadasz. The court ordered that the sum of $430,498.76 paid into court by Bloomer Constructions be distributed to Vadasz's creditors, with the balance to be paid to Vadasz's solicitors, subject to their undertaking to pay the remaining creditors within 48 hours. The court also ordered Bloomer Constructions to pay Vadasz's costs of and incidental to the application. Additionally, the court ordered Bloomer Constructions to pay Vadasz's costs of and incidental to a previous application in the matter. Finally, the court dissolved a previous consent order made between the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
[1] Dismiss the defendant’s application for a stay of the judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $415,079.50 obtained pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004;
[2] Order that the sum of $430,498.76 paid into court by the defendant pursuant to the consent order dated 23 June 2009 and any accretions thereon be paid out as to $65,224.00 to Independent Reinforcing Supplies Pty Ltd and, as to the balance, to the solicitors for the plaintiff, on their undertaking to pay the other two creditors referred to in the proceedings, Wagners Concreting Pty Ltd and Dellit Concreting, within 48 hours of receipt of the funds.
[3] Order that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to each application in matter 6628 of 2009;
[4] Further order that the applicant, Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd, pay the second respondent’s, Michael Christopher Vadasz’s, costs of and incidental to the application in BS6449 of 2009.
[5] Further order in matter BS6449 of 2009 that paragraph 1 of the order made by consent before the Chief Justice on 23 June 2009 be dissolved.
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.