Location:
PMKI > IT
& Construction Industries > Casewatch
Index.
They are not intended to be a substitute for legal
advice and no liability is accepted by Doyles Construction
Lawyers
or Mosaic Project Services Pty Ltd.
Click through to register for the Casewatch emails
- Adjudication Casewatch
publications focused on
Adjudication
- Arbitration Casewatch
publications focused on
Arbitration
- Contract & Tort
Casewatch publications focused
on general law
- External web links
Other related sections of the PMKI:
- Construction &
Engineering Management
- Claims and Forensic Analysis
- Dispute management support
Return to the Casewatch Site Map
OSB Group Ltd -v- Complete Hire Sales
This decision declined to issue a summary judgement as
to whether a respondent to recovery proceedings, brought
under the Building and Construction Industry (Security of
Payment) Act 2021(WA) s 27 (3)(b), has a defence based on
rights under Commonwealth legislation, the Australian
Consumer Law 2010(Cth), to recover damages for misleading
or deceptive conduct. However, the Judge found there
is arguably an inconsistency between s 27(3)(b)(i) of
the Act and the ACL resulting in the
former being 'inoperative' to an extent.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Lendlease Building Pty Ltd v BCS Airport Systems Pty
Ltd
This decision reinforces Australian courts' support of the
adjudication dispute resolution systems across Australian
jurisdictions and suggests that contractors and builders
may be able to rely on the simplicity and certainty of
adjudication under security of payment regimes, including
on Commonwealth sites governed by the Commonwealth
Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth) (CPAL
Act).
[View Casewatch PDF]
EnerMech Pty Ltd v Acciona Infrastructure Projects
Australia Pty Ltd
This decision of the NSW Court of Appeal supports the
power of an Adjudicator to determine financial issues such
as charges against a bank guarantee, provided the
construction contracts allow for the fiscal mechanisms to
affect payments under the construction contract, and
defines the applicability of SOPA legislation.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Bega Valley Shire Council v Kenpass Pty Ltd
This case demonstrates the critical importance of ensuring
the Payment Claim and Payment Schedule processes under
SOPA legislation is performed fully and correctly in all
relevant jurisdictions throughout Australia -
rectification of omissions later is not
allowed.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Venture Spirits Pty Ltd v Adjudicate Today Pty
Ltd
This Tasmanian SC judgment serves as a caution for parties
in an adjudication regarding the financial impacts of an
unfavorable adjudication finding. Payment of the award is
required either to the claimant or into Court, even with
reasonable appeal prospect.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Rodrigues v CustomOz
This judgment shows how protections regarding 'without
prejudice' communications may interact with SOPA
legislation, including where (despite the inclusion of the
phrase “without prejudice”) a particular correspondence
may not actually be sent for a without privilege purpose.
While the requirements for SOPA Payment claims or
Schedules are undemanding, it is best practice to draft
such documents to clearly articulate each component as
well as the document’s purpose as a whole.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Ceerose Pty Ltd v A-Civil Aust Pty Ltd
This decision shows how the court may choose to uphold
parts of an adjudication, while striking-down other parts,
infected by jurisdictional error. The case also
demonstrates how arguments to preserve part or parts of an
adjudication decision which are unaffected by any alleged
jurisdictional issues, may be a strategic tool for parties
seeking to defend against any appeal.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Piastrino v Seascape Constructions Pty Ltd
This case demonstrates the Victorian Supreme Court's
approach to the jurisdictional limits of the adjudication
scheme under the Victorian SOP legislation and highlights
the significance of separately identifying domestic and
commercial works in mixed purpose developments.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Renbar Constructions Pty Ltd v Sader
The NSW Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of
maintaining proper procedures throughout a contract in the
raising and payment of progress claims and the
consequences if they do not comply with the contractual
requirements and the effect of an acknowledgment of the
defective claims or an intention to make payment might
entail during the course of later disputes.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Equa Building Services Pty Ltd v A&H Floors 2 Doors
Australia
The NSW Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of
clarifying the mechanisms and designated contacts for
effective service. Hammerschlag J's decision also shows
the repercussions of a failure to effect service of a
payment claim under the Building and Construction
Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW).
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Ventia Australia v BSA Advanced Property Solutions
The NSW Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of
contract structuring in periodic subcontracts between
parties and the significance of whether or not a periodic
contract provides for all work to be conducted under a
single contract or for multiple contracts to be created in
the course of works triggering the 'one contract rule' for
Adjudication claims.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Southern Cross v Magill Earthmoving
The NSW Supreme Court considered whether an adjudicator’s
reasoning was so unreasonable it should squash a
determination. It found in light of the statutory
requirement to determine often difficult questions within
a tight timeframe, unless it is found that there is a
jurisdictional error or that the decision made is one that
no reasonable person could have made the determination
should stand.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Valeo Construction v Pentas
The Victorian Supreme Court has found that a revised
payment claim constituted a prohibited second claim in
relation to same reference date – Building and
Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic),
s. 14(8).
[View Casewatch PDF]
Fitz Jersey Pty Ltd v Atlas Constructions
The NSW Court of Appeal has reinforced the robust
procedures for the recovery of an adjudicated amount under
the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment
Act 1999.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Shade Systems v Probuild Constructions
The NSW Supreme Court has reinforced that adjudication
determinations under the Building and Construction
Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) cannot be
challenged due to errors of law provided the Adjudicator
is acting within jurisdiction.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Class Electrical Services v Go Electrical
Credit Applications are not necessarily construction
contracts under Building and Construction Industry
Security of Payment Act.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Illawarra v Denham
This case highlights the importance of identifying in a
Notice of Termination, the effective date and time of
termination and the effect it may have on reference dates
giving rise to rights to progress claims under the Act and
the inclusion of security does not give rise to an invalid
claim.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Nazero Group v Top Quality Construction
Those who challenge adjudication determination must pay
for the privilege. The general policy of the Building and
Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
is to require a respondent to pay into Court of the
adjudicated amount, when the respondent commences
proceedings to set aside an adjudication determination.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Austruct Qld Pty Ltd v Independent Pub Group
The Supreme Court of Queensland confirms that a party
issuing a payment claim must act honestly and to not
mislead.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Denis McFadden v Daniel John Turnbull
The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently confirmed
that for the Building and Construction Industry Security
of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) to apply, no party to the
contract must reside or propose to reside in the premises.
To retain the protection of the Act, builders are best to
contract only with a company.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Rail Corporation of NSW v Nebax Constructions
The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently confirmed
that arguments that object to the jurisdiction of an
adjudicator do not need to be part of a party's Payment
Schedule, although it would be wise to include them in the
Payment Schedule if they are likely to arise. The Court
also highlighted the dangers of endorsing every invoice as
a Payment Claim under the Act.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
John Holland Pty Ltd v Walz Marine Services Pty Ltd
The Supreme Court of Queensland has recently confirmed the
importance of fully defining all reasons for non-payment
in a Payment Schedule as failing to do so may prevent
raising new reasons later. Failure to expressly deny facts
in the Payment Schedule may amount to an admission that
those facts are not disputed. This case will have
immediate impact on those responsible for the content of a
Payment Schedule in reply to a Payment Claim.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Hansen & Yuncken -v- Ericson t/a Flea's Concreting
The Supreme Court of Queensland has recently confirmed
that a respondent challenging a determination under the
Security of Payments legislation will be required to
secure interest as well as the adjudicated amount pending
the hearing of the challenge to that adjudication
determination. This case will have an immediate impact on
the way in which successful claimants require security
from respondents pending the hearing of a substantive
claim to off set the adjudicated amount.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Steel v Beks
The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently confirmed
the importance of proper service of payment claims under
the BCISOP Act. Failure to properly serve a payment claim
(or any other notices under the Act) in accordance with
the provisions of the Act will render an adjudicator’s
determination void in the event an adjudicator proceeds to
determine the claim. This case has immediate impact on
those responsible for the service of payment claims or
other notices under the Act to ensure that it service
properly effected.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Parsons Brickerhoff v Downer EDI
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has recently
confirmed the breadth of the meaning of the “ordinary
place of business” in respect of the BCISOP Act to include
“any place at or from which the person usually engages in
activities which for a not insignificant part of the
person’s business". This case will have immediate impact
on those serving and receiving payment claims, to ensure
that they are (i) served at an ordinary place of business
or (ii) at a registered office by formal service.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Lanmac v Andrew Bruce Wallace
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has recently
confirmed the requirement for payment into Court of an
amount determined by an adjudicator in the event a
respondent wishes to challenge an adjudicator’s
determination. This case illustrates that whilst
determinations made under the Security of Payment
legislation are interim determinations, to preserve the
rights of a claimant to secure payment, an amount equal to
the determination will generally need to be paid into
Court if a challenge is made by a respondent.
[View Casewatch PDF]
CC No 1 & Anor v Reed
The New South Wales Supreme Court has reinforced a
contractor’s right to include in payment claims made under
the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment
Act, amounts which have been the subject of previous
payment claims, but which remain unpaid.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Watpac -v- Austin Corp
The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently confirmed
the position that the reagitation of a claim in a
successive adjudication application, that has already been
determined in a previous application, amounts to an abuse
of process and is susceptible to the doctrine of issue
estoppel.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Reed v Eire
The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently examined
whether service by way of email could be considered as
valid service for the purposes of the Building and
Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (NSW) 1999;
and found, with reference to the Electronic Transactions
Act (NSW) 2000, that service could be validly affected by
way of email.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Urban Traders v Paul Michael
The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently sought to
define the circumstances for the application of the
Dualcorp principle, promoting the operation of the BCISOP
Act, to permit, in certain circumstances an opportunity to
submit further payment claims including parts of payment
claims which have previously been claimed. This case will
have immediate impact on those drafting statutory payment
claims and adjudication applications, to ensure that they
include in their claims all necessary material and
submissions in support of that claim and manage the claims
process carefully.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Reed Construction v Dellsun
The Queensland Supreme Court has recently confirmed that a
creditor’s statutory demand issued pursuant to the
Corporations Act (Cth) on the basis of an adjudicator’s
determination under the Building Construction Industries
Payments Act 2004 (QLD) may be invalid on the basis of a
genuine dispute or an offsetting claim. This case will
have immediate impact on those considering issuing
creditor’s statutory demands in order to recoup a progress
claim affirmed by an adjudicator.
[View Casewatch PDF]
University of Sydney v Cadence
The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently broadened
the application of the Dualcorp principle, narrowing the
operation of the BCISOP Act, to exclude the opportunity to
submit for adjudication a claim, or even part of a claim
which has previously been the subject of an adjudicator’s
determination. Those drafting statutory payment claims and
adjudication applications, will need to ensure that they
include in their claims all necessary material and
submissions in support of that claim to avoid being
precluded from issuing another claim.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Dualcorp v Remo Appeal
The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently found that an
adjudicator’s decision under the security of payment
legislation binds a subsequent adjudicator in his/her
determination and potentially the court. This case draws
attention to the importance of the requirement to make
comprehensive submissions in an adjudication application.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Integral Energy Australia v Kinsley
The Supreme Court of New South Wales recently examined
whether the adjudicator’s decision under the security of
payment legislation was invalid where the adjudicator did
not consider some submissions made by the respondent in
the adjudication response. This case draws attention to
the importance of making comprehensive submissions in the
payment schedule.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Skinner v Timms
The Supreme Court of Queensland recently examined whether
the adjudicator’s decision under the security of payment
legislation was void where the payment claim was served
prior to the reference date, and the subsequent payment
schedule was improper in its form. This case calls
attention to the importance of compliance with the
reference date according to the terms of contract and the
security of payment legislation.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Zebicon v Remo Constructions
The New South Wales Supreme Court has recently examined
whether a payment claim served by facsimile amounted to
effective service in circumstances where it was not
received by the respondent due to a malfunction of the
respondent’s facsimile machine and found that where an
electronic means of service is adopted under the Building
and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999,
both the claimant and the respondent are responsible for
its transmission, and the functionality of their
equipment.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Walton Constructions (Qld) v Robert Salce
The Queensland Supreme Court has recently examined the
scope of the definition of construction contract and
whether a guarantee falls within the scope of the Security
of Payment Act, and makes a clear distinction between the
provision of a guarantee and the definition of a
“construction contract” under the Construction Industry
Payment Act 2004 (Qld).
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Broad Construction v Vadasz
This case illustrates that where a report (or other
evidence) is relied upon in an adjudication response, an
adjudicator may refuse to consider the report if it was
not properly included in the Payment Schedule,
consequently the failure to explain the full basis of
negating the payment claim can be fatal to a defence.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Shorten v David Hurst Constructions
The New South Wales Supreme Court examined the impact of
the lack of proof available for the proper service of an
adjudication application and applied an ancient principal
that no person could profit by his own wrong. This case
illustrates the need for careful review of documents prior
to service and also the need to ensure that claims and
application are properly served on all parties.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Katherine v The CCD Group
The NSW Supreme Court has determined that in some
instances the Courts may amend a portion of a
determination under the Building and Construction Industry
Security of payments Act where an adjudicator has
determined an amount of interest under a construction
contact which the Court may construe as a penalty.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Berem v Shaya Constructions
This case illustrates that the misdescription of parties
in a payment claim may invalidate an adjudication based on
such a claim as no relevant construction contract exists
to find jurisdiction for the Adjudicator.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Bezzina v Deemah
This case illustrates that careful submissions as to
jurisdiction are necessary to avoid challenge in higher
Courts and may have immediate application to contract
managers and the way in which they administer contracts,
in order to avoid losing claims which may otherwise
succeed.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Rojo Building Pty Limited v Jillcris Pty Limited
This case illustrates that a careful election between
alternative elections under the Security of Payment
legislation avoids an unfortunate loss of advantage to the
Claimant. This judgement may have immediate application to
contract managers and the way in which they administer
contracts, in order to avoid losing rights which may
otherwise exist under the Security of Payments
legislation.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Tsoukatos v Mustafa
This case illustrates that the Courts will examine and
weigh up conflicting evidence in circumstances where
service is challenged, and that each respective party must
be able to sufficiently discharge their burden of proof to
establish that service was either effectively carried out
or not received at all. This judgement may have immediate
application to parties to Security of payment disputes
where personal service is not practicable and there is
potential for a dispute as to the effectiveness of
service.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Halkat Electrical v Holmwood Holdings
The Court of Appeal of New South Wales recently held that
an Adjudicator who makes a determination as to the value
of a Payment Claim on inappropriate grounds does not
perform their proper function under the Act. This case
provides guidance to Adjudicators and parties in all
states on the preparation of claims
[View Casewatch PDF]
Cant Contracting v Casella.
The Supreme Court of Queensland recently held that
contractors cannot rely on the Building and Construction
Industry Payment Act 2004 to recover payment for work
carried out without a licence in breach of the Queensland
Building Services Authority Act 1991.
[View Casewatch PDF].
Inten Constructions v Refine.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales recently confirmed
that the requirement for natural justice under the Act
must be considered in light of the framework of the SOP
Act, which does not give parties an unlimited opportunity
to make submissions.
[View Casewatch PDF].
Queensland v Epoca Constructions.
The Supreme Court of Queensland recently confirmed that
judicial review of Adjudicator’s decisions is available in
Queensland, but in reviewing a decision, the Court must be
satisfied that there is a clear error of law before it
will set aside all or part of the determination.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Abigroup v Riverstreet.
The Supreme Court of Victoria recently confirmed its
position that recovery of the claimed amount as a debt due
pursuant to section 16(2)(a) of the Act is only possible
where there is no real question to be tried.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
JBK Engineering v Brick & Block.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales held recently that
the adjudicator’s task is to resolve the issues between
the parties, and found that the Adjudicator is only
required to consider an application based on the arguments
raised by the parties, and the reasons given by the
Adjudicator demonstrated that he had considered the
progress claims and whether there was a reason for not
allowing the claim.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Acclaim v Loewenthal.
The New South Wales District Court recently held that if
at the time of entering into the contract for residential
building work it is the intention of the owner to reside
in the premises and this is made clear to the contractor,
then the Act will not apply to the construction contract.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Falgat v Equity (Appeal).
Given the strict timetable of the Act, parties should
ensure that Payment Claims and Payment Schedules are
served carefully and in accordance with the Act and other
statutes to avoid later disputes. Delivering documents to
a companies registered officer remains the most reliable
way to ensure correct service.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Bitannia v Parkline.
The Supreme Court recently held that contractors should
ensure that Payment Claims, and their service, are
carefully executed and are not misleading to ensure that
their rights to judgment under the Act are not affected.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Baulderstone v Queensland Investment Corp.
The Court will consider whether a document is a Payment
Schedule by reference to the provisions of the Act. In
doing so, the Court tends to avoid being overly technical,
but care should still be taken when preparing a Payment
Schedule to ensure that no doubt is left as to whether the
document is a Payment Schedule under the Act and that the
requirements of the Act are met.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Fifty Property v O'Mara.
The question of whether a construction contract exists
between the parties to is a jurisdictional fact that is
subject to review by the Courts and parties should ensure
that any contract is clearly reduced to writing and
executed to avoid later disputes.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Wooding v Eastoe.
The Supreme Court recently held that it is for an
Adjudicator to decide who the parties to a construction
contract are, and an error in determining this question
will not invalidate an Adjudication Determination.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Procorp Civil Pty Ltd v Napoli Excavations and
Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors.
The time for raising issues with a Payment Claim is in a
Payment Schedule. Issues raised after this time may not
receive consideration by an Adjudicator, much less by the
courts, and do not require the Adjudicator to investigate
by inviting further submissions.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Brookhollow Pty Ltd v R&R Consultants Pty Ltd
& Anor
An Adjudicator should not to 'Rubber Stamp' Payment
Claims, but should consider all issues raised by the
parties in an Adjudication, as a failure to do so on a
major issue may indicate a lack of good faith, voiding the
determination.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
De Martin & Gasparini v State Concrete
The Supreme Court recently confirmed that an Adjudicator
who wants to decide a matter on which the parties agree on
some other basis must give the parties notice and an
opportunity to respond to the point, or the determination
will be declared void.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Pacific General v Soliman
The NSW Supreme Court held that the absence of relevant
material from Pacific does not entitle the Adjudicator to
simply award the amount of the claim without addressing
its merits, which as a minimum involve determining whether
the construction work identified in the Payment Claim has
been carried out, and what is its value. To simply rubber
stamp the Claimant’s Payment Claim may result in the
Adjudication Determination being held void.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Holmwood v Halkat
This case stands for the proposition that an Adjudicator
must act honestly, conscientiously and not capriciously,
in determining an Adjudication Application. Further, an
Adjudicator’s failure to evaluate a Payment Claim in the
context of a payment Schedule and the simple acceptance of
only one party’s assessment may demonstrate a failure to
act in good faith.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Energy Australia v Downer
This case stands for the proposition that an interlocutory
Adjudication Determination may not be valid if the claims
contained within the Payment Claim and Adjudication
Application are of a different nature. Further,
notwithstanding the issue as to validity of an
Adjudication Determination, a Court may not interfere with
the payment process under the Act.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Glen Eight v Home Building
This case stands for the proposition that an interlocutory
injunction is likely to be granted where an Adjudicator
determines an Adjudication Application in a manner which
is not satisfactory or not as he/she indicated is the
proper way, his decision may be open to attack.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Air Dynamics v Durham
Where an Adjudication Certificate has been filed as a
judgment debt and paid, the Courts are unlikely to
entertain any further action that an Adjudication
Determination is void, as the purpose of the Act will be
exhausted.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Energetech v Sides
This case stands for the proposition that an Adjudicator
is entitled to finally determine a dispute as to whether a
stage has been reached in a contract for staged payments.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Lucas v City of Sydney
This case confirms the proposition that the Act is a
strict liability scheme and that cross-claims for estoppel
and misleading and deceptive conduct, in the context of
summary judgment, are outside the scheme of the Act and
unlikely to be entertained by the Courts.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Timwin v Façade
In determining an Adjudication Application, it is wise for
an Adjudicator to consider all submissions, even in the
alternative, because to not do so may leave an Adjudicator
open to the decision that he or she did not exercise his
or her powers in good faith.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Taylor v Brick Dept
When a claimant is not insolvent, but may become insolvent
due to non payment of an adjudicated amount, the
Respondent will not be permitted an order of stay of
execution of a judgment debt.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Taylor v Brick
A payment claim sent by facsimile, whether within or
outside normal office hours on a business day, is regarded
as being served on that day (NSW only – Victoria has
different requirements).
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Facade v Timwin
A stay to maintain a payment into court after a decision
that an Adjudicator’s Determination is void, is unlikely
to be granted merely by reason of the existence of a
reasonable appeal.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Cooper v Veghelyi (Appeal)
This case confirms that a respondent is required to pay
into the court as security the unpaid portion of an award
pending the final determination of those proceedings.
Further, this case highlights the interim nature of the
Act and that pursuant to section 32 of the Act a
respondent is entitled to an appropriate credit for the
Adjudicated Amount under the Contract.
[View Casewatch PDF]
Tolfab v Tie
A short form Payment Schedule which provides a clear
indication of the value of the work may be sufficient to
allow a Respondent to rely on reasons in its Adjudication
Response if it puts the Claimant on proper notice.
Further, an Adjudicator is wise to consider submissions in
the alternative where practicable.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Minister v Contrax - Appeal
Any provision in a construction contract that diminishes,
displaces or delays a contractor’s entitlement to work may
be void (and if void presumably void for all purposes).
Provisions subject to section 34 includes those relating
to the determination of reference dates and the
calculation of the amount of progress payments even though
the Act expressly refers to such provisions.
[View
Casewtch PDF]
Falgat v Masterform
An Adjudication Determination is conclusive and res
judicata is applicable as the Adjudicator is akin to a
judicial tribunal but that a genuine dispute for the
purposes of setting aside a statutory demand can still
exist.
[View
Casewtch PDF]
Reiby v Winterton
An Adjudication Determination is void if there is an
apprehended bias on the part of the Adjudicator and very
high standards are expected by the Court. The more
concerning aspect is that a disgruntled party to a
determination under the Act may have an escape mechanism
and avoid the effect of a determination, in the event that
the determination is unfavourable, by making a request for
a different Adjudicator on the grounds of bias.
[View
Casewtch PDF]
Co-ordinated v Climatech
Claims for delay damages can be the subject of Payment
Claims under the Act, if provided for by the terms of the
particular Contract between the parties but care still
should be exercised when preparing the Payment Claim.
[View
Casewtch PDF]
Schokman v Xception
To apply to adjudication when the Respondent fails to
provide a payment schedule, the Claimant must comply
strictly with the statutory timeframe.
[View
Casewtch PDF]
Coordinated Constructions Co v J M Hargreaves &
Ors
An Adjudicators Determination is not void if it includes
an incorrect amount in the Adjudicated Amount [View
Casewtch PDF] TQM v Dasein Care should be taken to ensure
the Adjudication Application is actually received.
[View
Casewtch PDF]
Review of the BCISOP Act 2004
Review of the Act in NSW - for amendments due in 2005.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Estate Property Holdings v Barclay Mowlem Construction
Some work included in a payment claim must have been
performed in the last 12 months.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Brodyn v Davenport (Appeal)
Judicial review is not available to parties seeking relief
from an erroneous decision by an Adjudicator, except in
very limited circumstances.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Digital v QX Australia
An interlocutory injunction may be granted where there is
a dispute to the validity or service of a payment claim.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Holdmark Developers v GJ Formwork
Only one final payment claim can be made at (or within 12
months of) the termination of the contract or cessation of
works.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Minister for Commerce v Contrax Plumbing & Ors
A provision in a contract that delays or diminishes a
contractors entitlement to payment under the Act will be
void.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Barclay Mowlem v Tesrol Walsh Bay
To 'provide' a payment schedule means the process of
delivery must be initiated rather then actual receipt by
the Claimant.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Isis Projects v Clarence Street
The sufficiency of a payment claim depends on the conduct
of the parties and the history of the contract. The Court
appears to be adopting a liberal approach.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Hawkins Construction v Macs Industrial Pipework
The Act applies to subcontracts entered into after the
commencement date.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd v HBO DC Pty Ltd.
Summary judgement provisions - various states.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Bourke Road Pty Ltd v Boxster Constructions Pty Ltd
A creditors statutory demand for a debt due must not be
submitted before the expiry of the prescribed time for
payment.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
John Holland v Cardno MBK
The Adjudication Application should not contain a new
contractual basis or new supporting documentation that was
not included in the Payment Claim.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Transgrid v Walter Construction Group 2004
The Adjudicator is not bound by the Superintendents
Certification.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
Kembla Coal Coke v Select Civil & Ors
A claim for preparation costs, extension of time, delay
and/or disruption costs may be included in a payment
claim.
[View
Casewatch PDF]
