Dickson Developments Precinct 1 Pty Ltd v Core Building Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 1518

Dickson Developments Precinct 1 Pty Ltd v Core Building Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 1518

Even assuming the applicant had an arguable appeal, the evidence fell far short of establishing a sufficient risk of insolvency, dissipation of funds, or prejudice to justify a stay pending appeal, particularly given the heavy burden imposed by the security of payment statutory scheme and the policy that the risk of insolvency falls on the principal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for a Stay of Execution of Orders Pending Appeal / Application Under Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 36.08(2) After Notice of Appeal Filed
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed with costs; money held by the Court ordered to be released to the first respondent forthwith.
Legal Topics
['stay Pending Appeal' 'payment Into Court' 'release of Money Paid Into Court' 'solvency Risk' 'adjudication Determination']
['practice and Procedure' 'building and Construction' 'security of Payment'] ['stay Pending Appeal' 'payment Into Court' 'release of Money Paid Into Court' 'solvency Risk' 'adjudication Determination']

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

Interlocutory Application for a Stay of Execution of Orders Pending Appeal / Application Under Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) R 36.08(2) After Notice of Appeal Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether orders made on 27 November 2023 for release of the adjudication amount to the first respondent should be stayed pending determination of the applicant's appeal." 'Whether the evidence established a sufficient risk of insolvency, dissipation of funds, or prejudice to justify a stay in light of the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payments) Act 2009 (ACT).']

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming the applicant had an arguable appeal, the evidence fell far short of establishing a sufficient risk of insolvency, dissipation of funds, or prejudice to justify a stay pending appeal, particularly given the heavy burden imposed by the security of payment statutory scheme and the policy that the risk of insolvency falls on the principal.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed with costs; money held by the Court ordered to be released to the first respondent forthwith.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application dated 29 November 2023 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the interlocutory application." "In relation to the order made on 27 November 2023, the amount of money held by the Court as a result of the applicant's payment into Court pursuant to paragraph 1...