Romeo v TQM Design and Construct Pty Limited [2013] NSWCA 72

Romeo v TQM Design and Construct Pty Limited [2013] NSWCA 72

At least two of the defences raised by the appellants were arguable, specifically whether the payments were by reference to work value under the Act, and whether the works were completed within the required time frame. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and the matter should be remitted for hearing on the merits.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision of Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'defence Struck Out' 'application of Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 1999']
['civil Procedure' 'building and Construction Law'] ['summary Judgment' 'defence Struck Out' 'application of Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 1999']

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 / Decision of Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deed of settlement was a construction contract to which the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 1999 applies' 'Whether the payment claim was served within the required period' 'Whether pleaded defences could arguably be made out to resist summary judgment']

Ratio Decidendi

At least two of the defences raised by the appellants were arguable, specifically whether the payments were by reference to work value under the Act, and whether the works were completed within the required time frame. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and the matter should be remitted for hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The orders of the primary judge (paras 1-5) set aside and the matter remitted to the District Court for hearing on the merits.' "Respondents to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and the costs of the summary judgment application in the Court below."]