NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd v Ettamogah Pub [2004] NSWSC 110 HEARING DATE(S) : 17 February 2004, 19 February 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 11 March 2004
JUDGMENT OF : McDougall J at 1 DECISION : Paras [64] and [65] of judgment
CATCHWORDS : BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - whether s 7(2)(a) applicable - meaning of "forms part of" in s 7(2)(a) - legislative purpose of s 7 - whether plaintiff may serve a progress claim under s 13 - whether "progress payment" has same meaning in Act as it does under the construction contract - effect of amendments to (inter alia) s 13 by Act No. 133 of 2002 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 LEGISLATION CITED : Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Act 2002 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Regulation 1999 Moratorium Act 1930 (NSW) General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 CASES CITED : City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Smith (1932) 48 CLR 532 TransGrid v Walter Construction Group Ltd [2004] NSWSC 21 Jemzone v Trytan [2002] NSWSC 395 Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd PARTIES : v Ettamogah Pub (Rouse Hill) Pty Ltd FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 55051/03 COUNSEL : S A Kerr (Plaintiff) F C Corsaro SC (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Gadens Lawyers (Plaintiff) Colin Biggers & Paisley (Defendant)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION LIST
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