Arconic Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited v McMahon Services Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1114

Arconic Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited v McMahon Services Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1114

Neither issue estoppel nor abuse of process prevents McMahon from advancing its claim in the fourth adjudication application, as the merits of entitlement to the claimed indirect costs have not previously been decided.

Parties
Plaintiff: Arconic Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited; First Defendant: McMahon Services Australia Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Resolution Institute; Third Defendant: Scott Pettersson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Ex Tempore Decision, Post Hearing
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs to the first defendant.
Legal Topics
Security of Payment, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Adjudication, Payment Claim
Building and Construction Equity Security of Payment Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Adjudication Payment Claim

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arconic Australia Rolled Products Pty Limited

Plaintiff

McMahon Services Australia Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Resolution Institute

Second Defendant

Scott Pettersson

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Ex Tempore Decision, Post Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether issue estoppel prevents McMahon from agitating the claim in the fourth adjudication application
  2. 2 Whether abuse of process doctrine prevents McMahon from re-agitating the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Neither issue estoppel nor abuse of process prevents McMahon from advancing its claim in the fourth adjudication application, as the merits of entitlement to the claimed indirect costs have not previously been decided.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs to the first defendant.

Orders

  • The summons filed in court on 8 August 2017 is dismissed.
  • Plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs.