Artkal Trading Pty Limited v Next Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 819

Artkal Trading Pty Limited v Next Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 819

Resending the identical payment claim the following day, without more, did not establish an implied representation that Artkal would not rely on the payment claim sent and received on 24 July 2020. If such a representation had been made, Next Constructions did not establish that it was misleading, and in any event the late payment schedule was not caused by reliance on the alleged representation. An injunction was therefore inappropriate. The resent payment claim was served on 25 July 2020, so the payment schedule served on 8 August 2020 was out of time. The defence failed and Artkal was entitled to judgment for the payment claim plus interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Building and Construction Proceeding for the Amount of a Payment Claim Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; the defendant's defence failed.
Legal Topics
['adjudication' 'payment Claim' 'payment Schedule' 'misleading Representation' 'reliance' 'injunction' 'service by Email' 'costs' 'interest']
['building and Construction' 'consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['adjudication' 'payment Claim' 'payment Schedule' 'misleading Representation' 'reliance' 'injunction' 'service by Email' 'costs' 'interest']

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 Building and Construction Proceeding for the Amount of a Payment Claim Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the email containing the payment claim sent Saturday, 25 July 2020 impliedly represented that the earlier email sent and received on 24 July 2020 would not be relied upon by Artkal.' 'If such a representation was made, whether it was misleading because Artkal contended it could rely on the 24 July 2020 email with the payment claim.' 'Whether an injunction restraining Artkal from relying on the payment claim served on 24 July 2020 was an appropriate remedy, and whether proof of reliance was necessary or relevant.' 'What was the date of service of the resent payment claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

Resending the identical payment claim the following day, without more, did not establish an implied representation that Artkal would not rely on the payment claim sent and received on 24 July 2020. If such a representation had been made, Next Constructions did not establish that it was misleading, and in any event the late payment schedule was not caused by reliance on the alleged representation. An injunction was therefore inappropriate. The resent payment claim was served on 25 July 2020, so the payment schedule served on 8 August 2020 was out of time. The defence failed and Artkal was entitled to judgment for the payment claim plus interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; the defendant's defence failed.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $209,736.95.' "Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs." 'In the event that the defendant seeks to apply for a stay of the judgment, liberty to apply by email to my associate within 14 days.']