TC Build Pty Ltd v STM123 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 564

TC Build Pty Ltd v STM123 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 564

The Court declined to order the plaintiff to provide the particulars sought because the plaintiff had served all evidence on which it relied, had made clear that it would prove direct costs through Jobpac records and supporting invoices, and the unparticularised direct costs not included in payment claims were not shown to be needed by the defendants to meet the plaintiff's claim as it was to be put. Whether that method would prove the claim was left for trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Civil Procedure Concerning Pleadings and Particulars in Construction Contract Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Defendants' Notice of Motion Seeking Particulars and Discovery
Outcome
The Court declined to order the plaintiff to provide the particulars sought by the defendants and stood the defendants' notice of motion over to 24 May 2024 to allow the parties to explore disclosure issues concerning Jobpac software.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'particulars' 'discovery' 'commercial List Procedure' 'direct Costs in Construction Projects']
['civil Procedure' 'construction Law' 'contract Law'] ['pleadings' 'particulars' 'discovery' 'commercial List Procedure' 'direct Costs in Construction Projects']

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 Commercial List; Civil Procedure Concerning Pleadings and Particulars in Construction Contract Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Defendants' Notice of Motion Seeking Particulars and Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to provide particulars identifying direct costs previously invoiced and paid, previously invoiced and unpaid, and never invoiced to the relevant defendants for each project.' "Whether the defendants needed particulars of direct costs not included in payment claims in order to meet the plaintiff's claim as the plaintiff proposed to put it." "Whether access to the plaintiff's Jobpac Connect system should be considered instead of ordering the requested particulars."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to order the plaintiff to provide the particulars sought because the plaintiff had served all evidence on which it relied, had made clear that it would prove direct costs through Jobpac records and supporting invoices, and the unparticularised direct costs not included in payment claims were not shown to be needed by the defendants to meet the plaintiff's claim as it was to be put. Whether that method would prove the claim was left for trial.

Court Disposition

The Court declined to order the plaintiff to provide the particulars sought by the defendants and stood the defendants' notice of motion over to 24 May 2024 to allow the parties to explore disclosure issues concerning Jobpac software.

Orders

  • ['Decline to order the plaintiff to provide the particulars sought by the defendants.' "Stand the defendants' notice of motion over to 24 May 2024 before Stevenson J." 'If the parties reach agreement as to orders, they may send short minutes to the Associate for orders to be made in chambers.']