Nepean Engineering Pty. Ltd. v. Total Process Services Pty. Ltd. (In Liquidation) [2005] NSWCA 409

Nepean Engineering Pty. Ltd. v. Total Process Services Pty. Ltd. (In Liquidation) [2005] NSWCA 409

A payment claim that purports in a reasonable way to identify the work to which the progress payment relates is sufficient to support a cause of action under s.15 of the Act, even if it does not identify every detail; summary judgment will not be resisted merely because identification is argued to be insufficient unless the failure is patent on its face.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Disposition
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['progress Payments' 'payment Claims' 'summary Judgment' 'identification of Work' 'building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999' 'section 13(2)(a) Requirements']
['building and Construction Law'] ['progress Payments' 'payment Claims' 'summary Judgment' 'identification of Work' 'building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999' 'section 13(2)(a) Requirements']

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 / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the payment claim served by Total Process Services Pty. Ltd. sufficiently identified the construction work as required by s.13(2)(a) of the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999' 'Whether failure to comply with s.13(2)(a) renders a payment claim a nullity' 'Whether summary judgment should be granted when there is an arguable defence regarding identification of the work']

Ratio Decidendi

A payment claim that purports in a reasonable way to identify the work to which the progress payment relates is sufficient to support a cause of action under s.15 of the Act, even if it does not identify every detail; summary judgment will not be resisted merely because identification is argued to be insufficient unless the failure is patent on its face.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted; Notice of Appeal to be filed within 7 days.' 'Appeal dismissed.' "Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the application for leave and of the appeal."]