NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Lindvest DM Pty Ltd v CPDM Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1290 Hearing dates: 17 September 2020 Date of orders: 22 September 2020 Decision date: 22 September 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity - Technology and Construction List Before: Stevenson J Decision: Defendant's notice of motion to strike out or stay the proceedings is dismissed. Security to be provided in instalments Catchwords: BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – contractual rights preserved by s 32 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) – party seeking final relief in relation to contractual rights while adjudication determination remains unsatisfied CIVIL PROCEDURE – abuse of process – whether it is an abuse of process for a party to commence and prosecute proceedings seeking to enforce contractual rights – where adjudication determination made under s 22 of the Act – where judgment has been entered against it under s 25 of the Act – where party does not seek to stay or set aside judgment under s 25(1) of the Act – where party does not pay amount of judgment debt into court Legislation Cited: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Cases Cited: Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27 Falgat Constructions Pty Ltd v Equity Australia Corp Pty Ltd (2005) 62 NSWLR 385; [2005] NSWCA 49 Filadelfia Projects Pty Limited v EntirlTy Business Services [2010] NSWSC 473 Nazero Group Pty Limited v Top Quality Construction Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 232 Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd (2018) 264 CLR 1; [2018] HCA 4 Tombleson v Dancorell Constructions [2007] NSWSC 1169 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd 256 CLR 507; [2015] HCA 28 UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77; [2018] HCA 45 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Lindvest DM Pty Ltd (Plaintiff/Respondent) CPDM Pty Ltd (Defendant/Applicant) Representation: Counsel: S A Lees (Plaintiff/Respondent) I G Roberts SC with A Cameron (Defendant/Applicant)
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