Facade Innovations Pty. Ltd. v. Timwin Constructions Pty. Ltd. & Ors. [2005] NSWCA 197

Facade Innovations Pty. Ltd. v. Timwin Constructions Pty. Ltd. & Ors. [2005] NSWCA 197

Because the separate proceedings before McDougall J were, in substance, directed towards attacking Facade's Supreme Court judgment based on the adjudication determination, and because that judgment remained enforceable until set aside, the policy behind s25 required the money paid into court to remain in court...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Building and Construction; Application for Stay of Order / Court of Appeal Motion for Stay Pending Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Stay granted until the judgment entered in favour of Facade is set aside; costs of the motion to be costs in the appeal; appeal expedited without displacing matters already fixed for hearing.
Legal Topics
['building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999' 'adjudication Determination' 'stay of Order' 'payment Into Court' 'setting Aside Judgment']
['building and Construction' 'civil Procedure'] ['building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999' 'adjudication Determination' 'stay of Order' 'payment Into Court' 'setting Aside Judgment']

Source-derived case record

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

Building and Construction; Application for Stay of Order / Court of Appeal Motion for Stay Pending Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether order three made by McDougall J for payment out to Timwin of money paid into court should be stayed pending the setting aside of Facade's judgment and/or determination of the appeal." 'Whether the existence of a reasonable appeal and possible enforcement difficulties justified a further stay pending determination of the appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the separate proceedings before McDougall J were, in substance, directed towards attacking Facade's Supreme Court judgment based on the adjudication determination, and because that judgment remained enforceable until set aside, the policy behind s25 required the money paid into court to remain in court unless and until the judgment was set aside. The payment-out order was therefore stayed until the judgment in favour of Facade was set aside.

Court Disposition

Stay granted until the judgment entered in favour of Facade is set aside; costs of the motion to be costs in the appeal; appeal expedited without displacing matters already fixed for hearing.

Orders

  • ['Order three made by McDougall J on 1 June 2005 in proceedings 55035/05 for payment out to Timwin of money paid into court be stayed until the judgment entered in favour of Facade in 11729/05 is set aside.' 'The costs of this motion be costs in the appeal.' 'The appeal be expedited, but not so as to displace...