Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited v. Psmith and Others

To:
From:
Date:
Re: Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited v. Psmith and Others
The actions against the defendants can be brought under one proceeding since it would lead
to the exoidiation of the process pertaining to litigation as far as the case of Blackwater
Technology Services Pty Limited v. Psmith and Others is concerned. It would also lead to
the derivation of a comprehensive solution for the plaintiffs as far as capitulation upon their
statement of claim is concerned. It would also imply the aspect pertaining to the delivery of
justice in a timely manner as far as the merits of the case are concerned. It has been observed
that due to delays pertaining to civil litigation in courts of competent jurisdiction, people are
seeking remedial measures by the means of Alternative Dispute Resolution such as
mediation, conciliation and arbitration. As a result, it is imperative that one proceeding
should be taken into consideration as far as the incorporation pertaining to the action to be
initiated against the defendants are concerned accordingly thereby leading to the desired
outcomes without any major delays. It is to be ensured that the aspect pertaining to natural
justice is taken into account accordingly. In the case of Batistatos v Roads and Traffic
Authority of New South Wales, there was an abuse of the due process of law as far as delays
are concerned. Such an abuse implied that the defendant could not be subject to a fair trial as
far as basic human rights and civil liberties are concerned1. In this case, it was held by the
High Court of Australia that in the interest of justice with regard to the conclusion and
derivation of a comprehensive solution, the matter should be dismissed or there should be a
stay order on the proceedings permanently. As implied form the facts of the case Psmith has
been in blatant breach of the contract for the non-payment of the amount of twenty thousand
dollars to Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited thereby paying only two thousand
dollars which further states that the outstanding amount of eighteen thoiusand dollars must
also be paid as implied by the contract when such a contract is executed between the parties
accordingly. As a result, it is imperastive that the remedies for the breach of contract can be
soght after by Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited. It would help in the
compensation to be awarded to Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited on part of
Psmith as decided by the court of competent jurisdiction. Additionally, the payment
pertaining to the outstanding balance of two hundred forty five thousand two hundred and
fifty dollars have also not been received as implied by the contract with regard to the
completion of the activities pertaining to the supply and installation of the system
accordingly. Such an action on part of Psmith also constitutes that violation of the contract
thereby leading to potential damages to the other party. It is also inferred form the facts of
the case that the defendant has engaged any various activities pertaining to malpractices as far
as obtaining expensive products without actually making the required payments as far as the
aspect pertaining to completion of purchase is concerned. Since Australia is under the
jurisdiction of the common law of England and Wales, the common law principles pertaining
to the law of contract can also be applicable accordingly2. As a result, the common law
remedies with reference to the aspect of breach of contract can be taken into account in order
to capitulate upon the Statement of Claim by Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited in
the desired manner. The aspect pertaining to specific performance has been breached by
1 Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006] HCA 27
2 Richard Stone and James Devenney. The modern law of contract. (Routledge, 2017).

Psmith accordingly as far as the non- payment of the amount of two hundred forty five
thousand two hundred and fifty dollars are concerned. As a result, a debt has been imposed
upon Psmith accordingly. It is further imperative that the damages are to be paid to
Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited in an effective and efficient manner as decided
by the court of competent jurisdiction accordingly. Failure of the making of payment on part
of Psmith would lead to the initiation of separate proceedings as far as execution of the order
of the court is concerned in a proper and appropriate manner thereby imposing the liabilities
over Psmith in a stringent manner accordingly. Since the matter pertains to Sydney, the
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of 2005 framed under the ambit of the Civil Procedure Act of
2005 are applicable accordingly3. Since the claim made by Blackwater Technology Services
Pty Limited is under seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, the matter is to be filed in the
District Court of New South Wales accordingly as far as the rules pertaining to civil
jurisdiction in the District Court of New South Wales are concerned. Such an aspect is
implied by Section 134 of the District Courts Act of 1974 (New South Wales)4. If Blackwater
Technology Services Pty Limited is not satisfied by the decision made by the District Court
of New South Wales in this matter as far as a comprehensive solution is concerned, an appeal
can be filed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Subsequent appeal can also be filed
accordingly in the New South Wales Court of Appeal subject to the prescribed limitation
period. Furthermore, appeal can be made at the High Court of Australia, the apex court as far
as the federal level of Australia is concerned. The decision of the High Court of Australia
would be treated as final thereby binding upon both the parties to the contract accordingly.
Part 8 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of 2005 implies that the venue for the
proceedings would be decided by the plaintiff unless directed by the court otherwise5. As a
result, it is implied form the facts of the case that Blackwater Technology Services Pty
Limited is at adiscretion to decide upon the venue for the proceedings pertaining to litigation
unless it is directed otherwise by the District Court of New South Wales. In the case of R v
Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, Ex Parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Pty
Ltd, it was held by the High Court of Australia once there is a filing of a matter with regard to
the jurisdiction of the court, the court in question is under an obligation to act upon by the
virtue of the powers vested upon it in order to exercise jurisdiction accordingly6. It was
further asserted by the High Court of Australia that the Court with reference to arbitration had
made a jurisdictional error. The relationship between the parties are to be taken inot account
in order to initiate the proceedings against the defendant Psmith as far as the capitulation
upon the claim of the plaintiff Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited. In such aspects,
the chain of events must be analyzed in a proper and appropriate mennt so that the averment
of the plaintiff Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited is prepared in the desired
manner. If the defendant Psmith fails to appear within the period of twenty eight days, the
plaintiff Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited is at the discretion of making an
application in the District Court of New South Wales with reference to the entering of a
default judgement against the defendant Psmith. Such an application for default judgement is
also valid if some amount of the money claim has been received by the plaintiff as implied
form the facts pf the case pertaining to the amount of two thousand dollars paid to the
plaintiff Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited by the defendant Psmith. In order to
make an application with regard to the default judgment to be made against the defendant
Psmith, the plaintiff Blackwater Technology Services Pty Limited has to procure and fill out
3 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
4 District Courts Act 1974 (NSW)
5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
6 R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, Ex Parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Pty Ltd (1909)8
CLR 419