27 Sept 2005
SALEM LTD V TOP END HOMES LTD CA CA169/05
- Citation
- openlaw-dc436b3f_213d_4758_9bc3_d89344f6ba9f.pdf
- Court
- Court of Appeal
The stay was dismissed because the appeal was not seriously arguable on the facts: the written contract unambiguously named Top End and Salem as parties (supported by admissions and conduct), the contested payment claim plainly met the statutory requirements, and granting a stay would subvert the statutory purpose of prompt payment under the Construction Contracts Act and unjustly prejudice the contractor's cashflow.