Laing O'Rourke (BMC) Pty Limited v Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation [2007] NSWCA 211

Laing O'Rourke (BMC) Pty Limited v Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation [2007] NSWCA 211

The claimant failed to persuade the Court that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction. The evidence was insufficient regarding the costs and alleged wastefulness if the clause 27 dispute resolution process proceeded. Accordingly, the application for an injunction was refused.

Parties
Claimant: Laing O'Rourke (BMC) Pty Limited (formerly known as Barclay Mowlem Construction Limited); First Opponent: Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation; Second Opponent: CRI Chatswood Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Injunction refused; application for expedition of the appeal granted to a measured degree; claimant to pay the costs of the first and second opponents of the motion.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Appeal Procedure, Dispute Resolution, Building Contracts, Extension of Time
Civil Procedure Construction Law Interlocutory Injunction Appeal Procedure Dispute Resolution Building Contracts Extension of Time

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laing O'Rourke (BMC) Pty Limited (formerly known as Barclay Mowlem Construction Limited)

Claimant

Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation

First Opponent

CRI Chatswood Pty Limited

Second Opponent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain clause 27 dispute resolution procedure pending appeal
  2. 2 Application of principles for interlocutory injunctions in appellate proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to persuade the Court that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction. The evidence was insufficient regarding the costs and alleged wastefulness if the clause 27 dispute resolution process proceeded. Accordingly, the application for an injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Injunction refused; application for expedition of the appeal granted to a measured degree; claimant to pay the costs of the first and second opponents of the motion.

Orders

  • Application for interlocutory injunction refused.
  • Measure of expedition for the appeal granted.