CPB Contractors Pty Ltd & Ors v Heyday5 Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2)

Yesterday I published a judgment with my reasons for ordering that the plaintiff, CPB, could substitute an unconditional bank guarantee for the funds it has paid into court pending the hearing of its challenge to a determination made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW). [1]

Following publication of that judgment, the defendant, Heyday, sought leave to make further submissions. I granted that leave.

Heyday submitted:

In my opinion, the answer to these submissions is set forth in the submissions of CPB’s counsel that I set out at [9] of yesterday’s judgment.

I have no doubt that this Court’s Registry can recognise whether any bank guarantee sought to be lodged by CPB in substitution for the cash paid in court is or is not “unconditional”.

I see no reason to alter the orders I made yesterday.