Omiros Pty Ltd v PM Developments Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1501

Omiros Pty Ltd v PM Developments Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1501

The second and third respondents were personally liable under the 25 March 2003 guarantee because the wording expressly referred to the company and its directors guaranteeing payment, and the surrounding dealings supported personal guarantees. On the evidence, including the contemporaneous note of the 21 March 2003 conversation and the drawings provided to the project manager, the applicant delivered the proper and necessary documentation contemplated by the guarantee. The pending cross-claim by the first respondent in liquidation did not justify postponing judgment on the guarantee.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Claim by an Architect for Fees in Connection With Construction, Against Guarantors / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant against the second and third respondents in the amount of $116,540.44, with costs.
Legal Topics
['personal Guarantee' 'architectural Fees' 'delivery of Proper and Necessary Documentation' 'costs' 'cross Claim and Liquidation']
['contract Law' 'guarantees' 'building and Construction' 'civil Procedure'] ['personal Guarantee' 'architectural Fees' 'delivery of Proper and Necessary Documentation' 'costs' 'cross Claim and Liquidation']

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

Claim by an Architect for Fees in Connection With Construction, Against Guarantors / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second and third respondents signed the 25 March 2003 document as personal guarantors or only as directors of the company.' 'Whether the applicant delivered the proper and necessary documentation required by the guarantee.' "Whether the applicant's claim on the guarantee should be postponed until the first respondent's cross-claim was resolved."]

Ratio Decidendi

The second and third respondents were personally liable under the 25 March 2003 guarantee because the wording expressly referred to the company and its directors guaranteeing payment, and the surrounding dealings supported personal guarantees. On the evidence, including the contemporaneous note of the 21 March 2003 conversation and the drawings provided to the project manager, the applicant delivered the proper and necessary documentation contemplated by the guarantee. The pending cross-claim by the first respondent in liquidation did not justify postponing judgment on the guarantee.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant against the second and third respondents in the amount of $116,540.44, with costs.

Orders

  • ['There be judgment for the applicant against the second and third respondents in the amount of $116,540.44.' "The second and third respondents pay the applicant's costs, including reserved costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement."]