Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Total Development Supplies Pty Ltd v GRD Building Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2032
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLIES PTY LTD v GRD BUILDING PTY LTD (ACN 114 871 082) NTD 19 OF 2007
REEVES J
17 DECEMBER 2007
DARWIN IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY NTD 19 OF 2007
BETWEEN: TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLIES PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: GRD BUILDING PTY LTD (ACN 114 871 082)
Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J DATE OF ORDER: 17 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: DARWIN
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant's notice of motion dated 11 December 2007 be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the notice of motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY NTD 19 OF 2007
BETWEEN: TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPLIES PTY LTD
Applicant
AND: GRD BUILDING PTY LTD (ACN 114 871 082)
Respondent
JUDGE: REEVES J
DATE: 17 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE: DARWIN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION 1 This is an application for an anti-suit injunction by Total Development Supplies Pty Ltd (TDS) on the ground that certain appeal proceedings being pursued by GRD Building Pty Ltd (ACN 114 871 028) (GRD) in the Local Court at Darwin are vexatious or oppressive. In the alternative TDS seeks a stay of the Local Court appeal proceedings relying upon the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to control the processes of inferior courts in the interests of justice. TDS claims the Federal Court can exercise this jurisdiction relying upon the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act of the Commonwealth and Northern Territory.
BACKGROUND 2 On 17 January 2006 (although this date appears to be disputed) GRD, as the head contractor, and TDS, as the subcontractor, entered into a "standard minor works subcontract" for the supply and installation of various materials in connection with the construction of an eight level residential apartment building in Darwin to be known as the Cascade Apartments. During the term of this contract a dispute arose between GRD and TDS. For its part TDS claims that GRD made representations to it about the dimensions of various parts of the apartment building and the program of works for the construction of the apartment building which were misleading or deceptive in breach of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act. On the other hand GRD claims that TDS failed to perform its obligations under the contract within the time required thus necessitating GRD completing those obligations at its expense. 3 In October 2007 GRD decided to pursue its claims against TDS by making an application to have a payment dispute adjudicated under the provisions of s 28 of the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act Northern Territory. Within a couple of days of this application being lodged, Mr Brian Gallaugher was appointed as the adjudicator to determine the payment dispute under that Act. After receiving written submissions about the issue, on 26 November 2007 Mr Gallaugher determined that GRD's application had not been made within the time limits set by s 28 of the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act and dismissed GRD's application. This led GRD to apply to the Local Court at Darwin on the 29th of November 2007 seeking a review of the adjudicator's decision pursuant to the provisions of s 48 of the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act. These are the Local Court appeal proceedings to which TDS's application is directed. 4 For its part, TDS decided to pursue its claims against GRD by filing an application in the Federal Court on 23 November 2007. TDS's application to this Court was supported by a statement of claim. At the first directions hearing on 5 December 2007, I made various directions and gave the proceedings an indicative trial date of the four days commencing 21 April 2008. During that directions hearing I was told about the existence of the Local Court appeal proceedings and the intention of both parties to seek to stay the others' proceedings. One of the directions I gave at that directions hearing was that GRD should file a defence and any cross claim it has to TDS's statement of claim on or before 14 January 2008. 5 On 11 December 2007 TDS filed the notice of motion which has led to this decision. That notice of motion was supported by an affidavit sworn by Paul Gerard Maher with numerous annexures which set out much of the history of the dispute between the parties. I do not need to go into the detail of that history here. On 12 December 2007 GRD filed a notice of motion seeking to have these proceedings stayed until further order. At this stage I am only required to determine the former notice of motion. During the course of submissions I was informed that the Local Court appeal proceedings have now been set down for hearing for one day on 25 February 2008.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate