BCFK Holdings Pty Ltd v Rork Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 185

BCFK Holdings Pty Ltd v Rork Projects Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 185

Although the Principal was successful in the substantive proceedings, its success depended on a volte-face about effective service of the First Payment Claim. Had it accepted effective service at the time, there would have been no need for the Builder to serve the Second Payment Claim, and there was no reason to conclude an adjudication confined to the remaining matters would have been quashed. The justice of the case therefore required that the Principal not receive its costs, and that there be no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Costs in Equity Technology and Construction List Proceedings Concerning a Security of Payment Adjudication Determination / Post Judgment Costs Determination After Judgment Delivered on 14 December 2022
Outcome
No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['costs Discretion' 'payment Claim Service' 'adjudication Determination' 'building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (nsw) S 13(1 C)']
['costs' 'building and Construction' 'security of Payment'] ['costs Discretion' 'payment Claim Service' 'adjudication Determination' 'building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (nsw) S 13(1 C)']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs in Equity Technology and Construction List Proceedings Concerning a Security of Payment Adjudication Determination / Post Judgment Costs Determination After Judgment Delivered on 14 December 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the successful plaintiff should have its costs despite succeeding on the basis of an argument about service of the First Payment Claim opposite to the position it maintained when serving the First Payment Schedule.' 'Whether the justice of the case required no order as to costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Principal was successful in the substantive proceedings, its success depended on a volte-face about effective service of the First Payment Claim. Had it accepted effective service at the time, there would have been no need for the Builder to serve the Second Payment Claim, and there was no reason to conclude an adjudication confined to the remaining matters would have been quashed. The justice of the case therefore required that the Principal not receive its costs, and that there be no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['That there be no order as to costs']