Robust Builders Pty Ltd v Barai & Anor (No.3) [2023] NSWDC 373

Robust Builders Pty Ltd v Barai & Anor (No.3) [2023] NSWDC 373

The application was refused because the Court found that the owners' lay affidavits and expert report had been served on the builder by email on 11 November 2022, that Mr Mehndiratta had accessed at least part of the expert report using the link in that email, and that any failure to read the evidence or to raise a problem about incomplete access did not provide a proper factual basis for an adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Concerning a Builder's Claim Against Owners and Owners' Cross Claim for Alleged Incomplete and Defective Works / Plaintiff's Application During Final Hearing for Further Time and an Adjournment to Prepare Evidence in Reply
Outcome
Application for further time to respond to the owners' evidence and application for an adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'service of Evidence' 'evidence in Reply' 'self Represented Corporate Litigant' 'case Management Directions']
['civil Procedure' 'building and Construction'] ['adjournment' 'service of Evidence' 'evidence in Reply' 'self Represented Corporate Litigant' 'case Management Directions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding Concerning a Builder's Claim Against Owners and Owners' Cross Claim for Alleged Incomplete and Defective Works / Plaintiff's Application During Final Hearing for Further Time and an Adjournment to Prepare Evidence in Reply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should be granted further time and an adjournment to prepare evidence in reply to the owners' lay and expert evidence." "Whether the owners' lay affidavits and expert report had been served on the builder by email on 11 November 2022." 'Whether any asserted incomplete access to the expert report provided a proper factual basis for an adjournment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Court found that the owners' lay affidavits and expert report had been served on the builder by email on 11 November 2022, that Mr Mehndiratta had accessed at least part of the expert report using the link in that email, and that any failure to read the evidence or to raise a problem about incomplete access did not provide a proper factual basis for an adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for further time to respond to the owners' evidence and application for an adjournment refused.

Orders

  • ["Mr Mehndiratta's application for further time to respond to the owners' evidence is refused." "Mr Mehndiratta's application for an adjournment is refused."]