Nicholas Bobos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] NSWSC 449

Nicholas Bobos v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] NSWSC 449

Cristal's motion for payment out should be adjourned because, on the face of order 7, the bank guarantee proceeds were to be held in Court until final determination of the proceedings between Bobos Engineering and Cristal, and adjourning the motion was consistent with that order. The Court did not determine the dispute about whether order 7 reflected the parties' understanding; if pursued, Cristal's application should address and seek any necessary variation of that order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Involving a Motion for Payment Out of Monies Paid Into Court and a Motion for an Adjournment / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling on Motions
Outcome
Cristal's motion for payment out was adjourned to 6 May 2016; Mr Bobos' adjournment motion was otherwise dismissed; related proceedings were listed for directions; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['payment Out of Monies Paid Into Court' 'adjournment of Motion' 'bank Guarantee' 'building Contract' 'variation of Court Order']
['procedure' 'equity' 'commercial Law'] ['payment Out of Monies Paid Into Court' 'adjournment of Motion' 'bank Guarantee' 'building Contract' 'variation of Court Order']

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

Equity Proceedings Involving a Motion for Payment Out of Monies Paid Into Court and a Motion for an Adjournment / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling on Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Cristal Mining Australia Limited's motion for payment out of bank guarantee proceeds paid into Court should be adjourned" 'Whether the terms of order 7 supported holding the guarantee proceeds in Court until final determination of the proceedings between Bobos Engineering and Cristal' 'How any dispute about the basis on which the monies were paid into Court should be addressed']

Ratio Decidendi

Cristal's motion for payment out should be adjourned because, on the face of order 7, the bank guarantee proceeds were to be held in Court until final determination of the proceedings between Bobos Engineering and Cristal, and adjourning the motion was consistent with that order. The Court did not determine the dispute about whether order 7 reflected the parties' understanding; if pursued, Cristal's application should address and seek any necessary variation of that order.

Court Disposition

Cristal's motion for payment out was adjourned to 6 May 2016; Mr Bobos' adjournment motion was otherwise dismissed; related proceedings were listed for directions; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["Order the third defendant's motion dated 9 February 2016 (for payment of monies paid into Court) be adjourned until 6 May 2016." "Order the plaintiff's motion dated 14 April 2016 (for an adjournment) otherwise be dismissed." 'List proceedings 2016/20904 and 2014/47464 for directions in the Commercial List on...