Blue Chip Development Corporation (Cairns) Pty Ltd v van Dieman [2009] FCA 117

Blue Chip Development Corporation (Cairns) Pty Ltd v van Dieman [2009] FCA 117

There is no sufficient foundation for the court to interfere, at this time, with the operation of the statutory scheme established by the BCIP Act; balance of convenience does not warrant injunctive relief and any required adjustment can be satisfactorily resolved by monetary means.

Parties
Applicant: Blue Chip Development Corporation (Cairns) Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Nicco Van Dieman; Second Respondent: Ian Ericson trading as Flea's Concreting; Third Respondent: Alan Stapleton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Progress Payments, Validity of State Legislation, Balance of Convenience
Practice and Procedure Construction Law Constitutional Law Interlocutory Injunction Progress Payments Validity of State Legislation Balance of Convenience

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Chip Development Corporation (Cairns) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Nicco Van Dieman

First Respondent

Ian Ericson trading as Flea's Concreting

Second Respondent

Alan Stapleton

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the balance of convenience favours grant of interlocutory relief
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient foundation for the court to interfere with the operation of the statutory scheme established by the BCIP Act
  3. 3 Whether certain provisions in the BCIP Act are invalid for reason of inconsistency with Federal law

Ratio Decidendi

There is no sufficient foundation for the court to interfere, at this time, with the operation of the statutory scheme established by the BCIP Act; balance of convenience does not warrant injunctive relief and any required adjustment can be satisfactorily resolved by monetary means.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Notice of motion dismissed with costs.