Hebbel Constructions Pty Limited v Bitar Pty Limited and Anor [2018] NSWSC 1089

Hebbel Constructions Pty Limited v Bitar Pty Limited and Anor [2018] NSWSC 1089

The earlier liberty to apply was conditioned on a further complaint arising from a substantial delay by the receiver in completing the sale of unit 11. No such further substantial delay had arisen in the short period since the prior judgment and orders, and the receiver could not reasonably have been expected to complete a sale in that period. Bitar's attempt to relist the matter was therefore outside the scope of the liberty to apply and amounted to an impermissible attempt to re-agitate matters already determined.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Exercise Liberty to Apply in Respect of a Court Appointed Receiver / Procedural Ruling on Whether Liberty to Apply Was Properly Invoked and Costs
Outcome
Liberty to apply was not properly invoked and the substantive hearing of the application did not proceed.
Legal Topics
['liberty to Apply' 'court Appointed Receiver' 'relisting' 'substantial Delay' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations' 'equity'] ['liberty to Apply' 'court Appointed Receiver' 'relisting' 'substantial Delay' '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

Application to Exercise Liberty to Apply in Respect of a Court Appointed Receiver / Procedural Ruling on Whether Liberty to Apply Was Properly Invoked and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the liberty to apply granted in earlier orders was properly invoked by Bitar Pty Ltd.' 'Whether there had been a further substantial delay by the receiver in completing the sale of unit 11.' 'Whether Bitar Pty Ltd should be permitted to re-agitate matters determined in the earlier judgment.' 'What costs orders should be made in respect of the relisting.']

Ratio Decidendi

The earlier liberty to apply was conditioned on a further complaint arising from a substantial delay by the receiver in completing the sale of unit 11. No such further substantial delay had arisen in the short period since the prior judgment and orders, and the receiver could not reasonably have been expected to complete a sale in that period. Bitar's attempt to relist the matter was therefore outside the scope of the liberty to apply and amounted to an impermissible attempt to re-agitate matters already determined.

Court Disposition

Liberty to apply was not properly invoked and the substantive hearing of the application did not proceed.

Orders

  • ["Bitar Pty Ltd is to pay Daniel Frisken's costs of and incidental to the re-listing of the matter at the request of its solicitors, by their email dated 14 June 2018, on an indemnity basis." "Bitar Pty Ltd is to pay Hebbel Constructions Pty Ltd's costs of and incidental to the relisting of the matter on the...