C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 173

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd (No.2) [2022] NSWDC 173 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 25 May 2022 Decision date: 25 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 18 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – orders to give effect to reasons for judgment – terms of referral – basis for award of pre-judgment interest Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 100, 101 Cases Cited: Bhundia v Sommers (No.4) [2021] NSWSC 455 C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 154 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Consequential orders Parties: C&V Engineering Services Pty Ltd (plaintiff) Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Limited (defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr D Weinberger for the plaintiff Mr M Sheldon for the defendant

Solicitors: Bradbury Legal for the plaintiff Vincent Young Lawyers for the defendant File Number(s): 2021/00108258 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. On 12 May 2022 I delivered reasons for judgment and directed the parties to confer with a view to agreeing on orders to reflect those earlier reasons (C & V Engineering Pty Ltd v Metropolitan Demolitions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWDC 154). In the course of those earlier reasons, amongst other things, I referred to the Court's predisposition, expressed during the hearing, to refer issues of quantum regarding the plaintiff's successful claim of a breach of contract in relation to Building B. I also indicated that neither party raised objection to the proposed referral. 2. The parties have supplied versions of proposed short minutes and submissions. 3. Although they made some submissions on the issue, the parties agree that the question of costs (and fees) should be addressed following the completion of the reference. The submissions may be put aside until it is necessary to address them. It would be expected that the existing submissions on costs will be supplemented following the reference. 4. The parties otherwise disagreed on the appropriate orders. That leaves in issue: 1. the terms for the referral; and 2. the basis for an award of interest on the judgment. 1. In addition, Metropolitan wishes to bring an application for further security for costs and proposes a timetable to adjudicate such application. C&V contests that timetable.