NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Shade Systems Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2018] NSWCA 52 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 21 March 2018 Decision date: 21 March 2018 Before: Payne JA Decision: (1) The motion filed by Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd dated 14 February 2018 is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of preparation of the submissions filed by Shade Systems on 20 March 2018.
(2) Pursuant to s 14 of the Civil Procedure Act dispense with the requirements of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 36.16 and make the amendments to paragraph [25] of Shade Systems Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 33 identified in paragraph [25] of these reasons. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Unsuccessful High Court appeal - further stay of costs orders made by the Court of Appeal in 2016 pending the outcome of separate proceedings – whether matter should be remitted to the Equity Division Legislation Cited: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004) 61 NSWLR 421; [2004] NSWCA 394 Cardile v LED Builders Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 380 Finn v Carelli [2007] NSWSC 261 Frigo v Culhaci [1998] NSWCA 88 Hancock v Arnold (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 19 HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Dierickx [2013] NSWCA 479 Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd [2018] HCA 4 Schofield v Church Army [1986] 1 WLR 1328 (EWCA) Texts Cited: Derham, The Law of Set-Off Oxford University Press (2010) Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: Shade Systems Pty Ltd (Appellant/First respondent on the motion) Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (Respondent/Applicant on the motion) Doron Rivlin (Second Respondent) G A Atkins (Third Respondent) G T Connellan (Fourth Respondent) J Cooper (Fifth Respondent) L Gardner (Sixth Respondent) S C Harris (Seventh Respondent) M J Huckerby (Eighth Respondent) M J Lee (Ninth Respondent) P McCarthy (Tenth Respondent) R McKenna (Eleventh Respondent) S G O'Sullivan (Twelfth Respondent) M A Pitt (Thirteenth Respondent) P W Utiger (Fourteenth Respondent) S Wallace (Fifteenth Respondent) C A Williams (Sixteenth Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Christie SC / D Hume (Shade Systems Pty Ltd) S Robertson (Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd)
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