SRG Civil Pty Ltd v Brolton Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 618

SRG Civil Pty Ltd v Brolton Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 618

The instalment order should remain in place because Brolton established that it presently had insufficient funds to pay the judgment debt in full, that Hanson was not an available external source of funds given the terms of the head-contract and Hanson's indicated position, and that Brolton could meet the $150,000 monthly instalments. In those circumstances, the instalment order was more conducive to SRG obtaining full satisfaction of the judgment debt in a reasonable time, and the prejudice to SRG and public interest considerations did not outweigh that conclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Default Judgment; Instalment Order / Plaintiff's Objection/application to Rescind a Registrar's Instalment Order Under UCPR Rr 37.3 and 37.4
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to rescind the instalment order dismissed; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs on the ordinary basis, subject to leave to seek a different costs order.
Legal Topics
['default Judgment' 'payment by Instalments' "objection to Registrar's Instalment Order" 'judgment Debt' 'security of Payment' 'external Sources of Funds' 'enforcement of Money Judgments']
['civil Procedure' 'construction Law'] ['default Judgment' 'payment by Instalments' "objection to Registrar's Instalment Order" 'judgment Debt' 'security of Payment' 'external Sources of Funds' 'enforcement of Money Judgments']

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

Civil Procedure; Default Judgment; Instalment Order / Plaintiff's Objection/application to Rescind a Registrar's Instalment Order Under UCPR Rr 37.3 and 37.4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the instalment order allowing the defendant to pay the outstanding judgment sum by monthly instalments of $150,000 plus any GST payable should be rescinded.' 'Whether Brolton had sufficient means to satisfy the judgment debt immediately, including by obtaining funds from Hanson under the head-contract.' 'Whether the instalment order would be futile because Brolton could not meet the instalments.' 'Whether the instalment order would impose unreasonable hardship or prejudice on SRG or be inconsistent with the public interest in enforcing judgments efficiently.']

Ratio Decidendi

The instalment order should remain in place because Brolton established that it presently had insufficient funds to pay the judgment debt in full, that Hanson was not an available external source of funds given the terms of the head-contract and Hanson's indicated position, and that Brolton could meet the $150,000 monthly instalments. In those circumstances, the instalment order was more conducive to SRG obtaining full satisfaction of the judgment debt in a reasonable time, and the prejudice to SRG and public interest considerations did not outweigh that conclusion.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to rescind the instalment order dismissed; plaintiff to pay defendant's costs on the ordinary basis, subject to leave to seek a different costs order.

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to UCPR r 37.4(4)(b), the plaintiff's application to rescind the instalment order made by Assistant Deputy Registrar Gerristen on 20 December 2017 (that the defendant pay the plaintiff the outstanding judgment sum by monthly instalments of $150,000 plus any GST payable) is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to...