LCM Operations Pty Ltd v Rabah Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 722

LCM Operations Pty Ltd v Rabah Enterprises Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 722

Because there was no evidence of any contrary agreement about when or how the fee would be paid, the cause of action for the contract services debt accrued when 316 Group performed its services. A demand for payment was not necessary before the debt cause of action accrued. The plaintiff's calculation of interest from 30 March 2016 was therefore the most appropriate, and the judgment sum was varied to include that interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Proceedings for Recovery of Money, Including a Debt Arising Under a Contract for Services / On the Papers Determination of Interest Up to Judgment After Judgment for the Plaintiff
Outcome
Interest up to judgment was included in the judgment sum, calculated from 30 March 2016.
Legal Topics
['interest Up to Judgment Under S 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)' 'accrual of Cause of Action for Payment for Services' 'debt Payable on Performance of Services' 'demand for Payment']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'commercial Law'] ['interest Up to Judgment Under S 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw)' 'accrual of Cause of Action for Payment for Services' 'debt Payable on Performance of Services' 'demand for Payment']

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

Proceedings for Recovery of Money, Including a Debt Arising Under a Contract for Services / On the Papers Determination of Interest Up to Judgment After Judgment for the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['From what date interest under s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) should begin to accrue.' 'Whether the cause of action for the contract services debt accrued when 316 Group performed its services or only after a demand for payment.' 'Whether a demand for payment was necessary before a cause of action in debt accrued.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was no evidence of any contrary agreement about when or how the fee would be paid, the cause of action for the contract services debt accrued when 316 Group performed its services. A demand for payment was not necessary before the debt cause of action accrued. The plaintiff's calculation of interest from 30 March 2016 was therefore the most appropriate, and the judgment sum was varied to include that interest.

Court Disposition

Interest up to judgment was included in the judgment sum, calculated from 30 March 2016.

Orders

  • ['Vary Order 1 made on 2 June 2023 to enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $20,218,949.']