Vannella Pty Limited atf Capitalist Family Trust v TFM Epping Land Pty Ltd; Decon Australia Pty Limited v TFM Epping Land Pty Ltd; Vannella Pty Limited v TFM Epping Land Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1379

Vannella Pty Limited atf Capitalist Family Trust v TFM Epping Land Pty Ltd; Decon Australia Pty Limited v TFM Epping Land Pty Ltd; Vannella Pty Limited v TFM Epping Land Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1379

Progress Claim 10 served by Decon was a valid payment claim under the SoP Act, being sufficiently detailed and reconcilable in context; the interest claim and variations did not invalidate it; the defendants' 14 June email did not amount to a compliant payment schedule; thus, the statutory right to judgment accrued, and summary judgment for Decon was appropriate. The defendants failed to establish genuine triable issues or a basis to resist summary judgment. Security for costs was not warranted against Decon due to sufficient evidence of financial capacity; as to Vannella, a director's undertaking sufficed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Decision on Summary Judgment Motion and Security for Costs Motions
Outcome
Summary judgment for the plaintiff in the Decon proceedings; defendants' security for costs motions dismissed or adjourned; costs orders made against defendants.
Legal Topics
['security of Payment' 'summary Judgment' 'security for Costs' 'trusts' 'construction Contracts']
['building and Construction Law' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['security of Payment' 'summary Judgment' 'security for Costs' 'trusts' 'construction Contracts']

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 / Decision on Summary Judgment Motion and Security for Costs Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Progress Claim 10 constituted a valid payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)' 'Whether the inclusion of interest or variations invalidated the payment claim' 'Whether the defendants provided a compliant payment schedule' 'Whether there should be summary judgment for the plaintiff' 'Whether security for costs should be granted against corporate plaintiffs']

Ratio Decidendi

Progress Claim 10 served by Decon was a valid payment claim under the SoP Act, being sufficiently detailed and reconcilable in context; the interest claim and variations did not invalidate it; the defendants' 14 June email did not amount to a compliant payment schedule; thus, the statutory right to judgment accrued, and summary judgment for Decon was appropriate. The defendants failed to establish genuine triable issues or a basis to resist summary judgment. Security for costs was not warranted against Decon due to sufficient evidence of financial capacity; as to Vannella, a director's undertaking sufficed.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the plaintiff in the Decon proceedings; defendants' security for costs motions dismissed or adjourned; costs orders made against defendants.

Orders

  • ["In proceedings 2019/165506: dismiss the defendants' security for costs motion as to second plaintiff, adjourn as to first plaintiff pending undertaking, defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs of the motion." "In proceedings 2019/205661: order summary judgment for the plaintiff for $6,355,352.46, dismiss the...