Amirbeaggi and Anor v Matrix Group Co Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 827

Amirbeaggi and Anor v Matrix Group Co Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 827

Leave to appeal was required because the Local Court's refusal to stay enforcement of the judgment was an interlocutory judgment or order concerning practice and procedure. Leave was refused because the appellants had not shown that the ss.92 and 94 Home Building Act 1989 argument now advanced was squarely put to the Magistrate as an independent basis for a stay, the appellants had not challenged the adjudication certificate or sought to set aside the judgment, the same issues could be litigated in the pending District Court proceedings, and the interests of justice, proportionality and proper use of court resources did not warrant an interlocutory appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court Refusal of Stay of Execution of Civil Judgment Entered Following Registration of an Adjudication Certificate Under S.25 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 / Application for Leave to Appeal by Summons
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'stay of Execution of Local Court Judgment' 'adjudication Certificate Registered as Judgment' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'effect of Failure to Insure Residential Building Work' 'proportionality of Costs']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'building and Construction' 'security of Payment' 'home Building'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'stay of Execution of Local Court Judgment' 'adjudication Certificate Registered as Judgment' 'home Warranty Insurance' 'effect of Failure to Insure Residential Building Work' 'proportionality of Costs']

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

Appeal From Local Court Refusal of Stay of Execution of Civil Judgment Entered Following Registration of an Adjudication Certificate Under S.25 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 / Application for Leave to Appeal by Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Local Court judgment or order refusing a stay was interlocutory so that leave to appeal was required under s.40(2)(a) Local Court Act 2007.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the appellants sought to argue that ss.92 and 94 Home Building Act 1989 barred the respondent from obtaining or enforcing the adjudication judgment.' 'Whether the s.94 Home Building Act 1989 argument had been squarely raised before the Local Court.' 'Whether the appellants could litigate recovery of the adjudicated sum and the ss.92 and 94 Home Building Act 1989 issues in the District Court proceedings.' 'Whether the Local Court costs order should be disturbed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was required because the Local Court's refusal to stay enforcement of the judgment was an interlocutory judgment or order concerning practice and procedure. Leave was refused because the appellants had not shown that the ss.92 and 94 Home Building Act 1989 argument now advanced was squarely put to the Magistrate as an independent basis for a stay, the appellants had not challenged the adjudication certificate or sought to set aside the judgment, the same issues could be litigated in the pending District Court proceedings, and the interests of justice, proportionality and proper use of court resources did not warrant an interlocutory appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Appellants are refused leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment and orders of the Local Court of 25 November 2019.' 'The Summons filed on 18 December 2019 is dismissed.' "The Appellants are to pay the Respondent's costs of the Summons." "If a special costs order is sought by the Respondent, written...