AB & MA Chick (Vic) Pty Ltd (In Liq) v 526 Olive Street Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 575

AB & MA Chick (Vic) Pty Ltd (In Liq) v 526 Olive Street Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 575

Summary judgment was refused because serious issues were to be tried concerning the subcontractor payment statutory declarations, compliance with Clause 43.2, the defendant's entitlement to withhold payment, estoppel, set off and the plaintiff's entitlement to the retained $100,000. The interlocutory mandatory injunction was refused because there was a serious issue to be tried about the defendant's entitlement to call on the bank guarantee, no undertaking as to damages was proffered, the plaintiff's capacity to provide a replacement guarantee was not established, and the balance of convenience favoured not making the order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Construction Contract Dispute; Application for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction / Notice of Motion Heard on 25 May 2001 and 6 July 2001
Outcome
Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'progress Claims' 'payment of Subcontractors' 'statutory Declarations' 'bank Guarantees' 'interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'set Off' 'defective Works']
['construction Law' 'contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'equity' 'trade Practices'] ['summary Judgment' 'progress Claims' 'payment of Subcontractors' 'statutory Declarations' 'bank Guarantees' 'interlocutory Mandatory Injunctions' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'set Off' 'defective Works']

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

Construction Contract Dispute; Application for Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction / Notice of Motion Heard on 25 May 2001 and 6 July 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether summary judgment should be entered for the plaintiff for $100,000 withheld from Progress Claim no 15.' 'Whether the statutory declarations concerning payment of subcontractors were false, misleading or non-compliant with Clause 43.2 of the Contract.' 'Whether the defendant was entitled to withhold payment or rely on set off or claims under s 52 of Trade Practices Act.' 'Whether an interlocutory mandatory injunction should require the defendant to pay the proceeds of the bank guarantee to the plaintiff.' 'Whether the defendant had an entitlement to call on the bank guarantee and whether the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was refused because serious issues were to be tried concerning the subcontractor payment statutory declarations, compliance with Clause 43.2, the defendant's entitlement to withhold payment, estoppel, set off and the plaintiff's entitlement to the retained $100,000. The interlocutory mandatory injunction was refused because there was a serious issue to be tried about the defendant's entitlement to call on the bank guarantee, no undertaking as to damages was proffered, the plaintiff's capacity to provide a replacement guarantee was not established, and the balance of convenience favoured not making the order.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Notice of Motion is dismissed." 'The matter is listed for further directions on Friday 13 July 2001, when the Court will hear the parties on costs of the Motion if they cannot agree.']