CPB Contractors Pty Ltd & Ors v Heyday5 Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1404

CPB Contractors Pty Ltd & Ors v Heyday5 Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1404

Heyday's further submissions did not justify altering the previous orders because the matters raised were answered by CPB's counsel's submissions in the earlier judgment and the Court was satisfied that the Registry could recognise whether any bank guarantee lodged in substitution for cash was unconditional.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Technology and Construction List; Civil Procedure Payment Into Court / On the Papers After Leave Was Granted for Further Submissions Following Earlier Orders Allowing Substitution of an Unconditional Bank Guarantee for Funds Paid Into Court
Outcome
Earlier orders confirmed.
Legal Topics
['payment Into Court' 'unconditional Bank Guarantee' 'security of Payment Adjudication Challenge' 'consequential Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'building and Construction'] ['payment Into Court' 'unconditional Bank Guarantee' 'security of Payment Adjudication Challenge' 'consequential Orders']

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

Equity Technology and Construction List; Civil Procedure Payment Into Court / On the Papers After Leave Was Granted for Further Submissions Following Earlier Orders Allowing Substitution of an Unconditional Bank Guarantee for Funds Paid Into Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should alter earlier orders allowing CPB to substitute an unconditional bank guarantee for funds paid into court pending the hearing of its challenge to a determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether the terms of any bank guarantee should be disclosed before substitution is allowed and whether the Registry can determine if the guarantee is unconditional.']

Ratio Decidendi

Heyday's further submissions did not justify altering the previous orders because the matters raised were answered by CPB's counsel's submissions in the earlier judgment and the Court was satisfied that the Registry could recognise whether any bank guarantee lodged in substitution for cash was unconditional.

Court Disposition

Earlier orders confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The orders made yesterday were not altered.']