Alucity Architectural Product Supply Pty Ltd -v- Australian Solutions Centre; Alucity Architectural Product Supply Pty Ltd -v- Paul J Hick [2016] NSWSC 608

Alucity Architectural Product Supply Pty Ltd -v- Australian Solutions Centre; Alucity Architectural Product Supply Pty Ltd -v- Paul J Hick [2016] NSWSC 608

There was no failure of consideration or unjust enrichment because the authority and the adjudicator had statutory entitlements to fees for dealing with the adjudication application as invoked by Alucity, and the adjudicator made a valid determination dismissing the adjudication for want of jurisdiction, which...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment After Transfer From Local Court; Final Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
['unjust Enrichment' 'restitution' 'total Failure of Consideration' 'statutory Entitlement to Fees' 'adjudication Under Security of Payment Legislation']
['equity' 'building and Construction'] ['unjust Enrichment' 'restitution' 'total Failure of Consideration' 'statutory Entitlement to Fees' 'adjudication Under Security of Payment Legislation']

Source-derived case record

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

Civil / Principal Judgment After Transfer From Local Court; Final Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the authority and the adjudicator are unjustly enriched or liable in restitution to repay fees paid for an adjudication where the payment claim was held invalid under s 13(5) of the Act and no entitlement to progress payment existed.' 'Whether the statutory entitlement to fees for services under the Act depends on the outcome or validity of the payment claim or adjudication application.' 'Whether the amount charged by the authority and by the adjudicator as fees was excessive or unauthorised under the Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no failure of consideration or unjust enrichment because the authority and the adjudicator had statutory entitlements to fees for dealing with the adjudication application as invoked by Alucity, and the adjudicator made a valid determination dismissing the adjudication for want of jurisdiction, which constitutes a determination under the Act. The statutory regime, not contract nor unjust enrichment, governs entitlements; no restitution is due.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • ['Proceedings against both the authority and the adjudicator are dismissed.']