Dickson Developments Precinct 1 Pty Ltd v Core Building Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 1482

Dickson Developments Precinct 1 Pty Ltd v Core Building Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] FCA 1482

Because there was no evidence before the Court pertaining to the solvency or otherwise of the first respondent and no basis to conclude that release of the monies paid into Court to the first respondent would cause prejudice, let alone irreparable prejudice, to the applicant, the application for a stay was refused and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of that application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Orders / Application for Stay of Paragraph 3 of Orders of 27 November 2023
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders' 'release of Money Paid Into Court' 'undertaking Not to Enforce an Adjudication Determination' 'security of Payment' 'solvency and Irreparable Prejudice']
['practice and Procedure' 'building and Construction'] ['stay of Orders' 'release of Money Paid Into Court' 'undertaking Not to Enforce an Adjudication Determination' 'security of Payment' 'solvency and Irreparable Prejudice']

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

Application for Stay of Orders / Application for Stay of Paragraph 3 of Orders of 27 November 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders for the release of money paid into Court and release of the first respondent from its undertaking should be stayed for 14 days.' "Whether there was evidence of the first respondent's solvency or other basis to conclude that release of the monies would cause prejudice or irreparable prejudice to the applicant."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was no evidence before the Court pertaining to the solvency or otherwise of the first respondent and no basis to conclude that release of the monies paid into Court to the first respondent would cause prejudice, let alone irreparable prejudice, to the applicant, the application for a stay was refused and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of that application.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application by the applicant for a stay of paragraph 3 of my orders of 27 November 2023 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of that application."]