Probuild Construction (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 878

Since Shade Systems consented to the payment out and there is no risk Probuild could not repay the sum if required, it is inappropriate to stay the order for payment out pending appeal.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 20 June 2016
Procedural Posture: Notice of Motion / Application for Payment Out of Money in Court and Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome: Order made for the monies in Court to be paid out to the Plaintiff or its solicitor; stay refused.
Legal Topics: ['security of Payment' 'payment Out of Monies in Court' 'stay of Orders Pending Appeal']

['construction Law' 'equity'] ['security of Payment' 'payment Out of Monies in Court' 'stay of Orders Pending Appeal']

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

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application for Payment Out of Money in Court and Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether money paid into court by consent should be paid out to the successful party' 'Whether a stay of the order for payment out should be granted pending appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

Since Shade Systems consented to the payment out and there is no risk Probuild could not repay the sum if required, it is inappropriate to stay the order for payment out pending appeal.

Court Disposition

Order made for the monies in Court to be paid out to the Plaintiff or its solicitor; stay refused.

Orders

['Monies in Court to be paid out to the Plaintiff or its solicitor.' 'Stay of payment out refused.']