Coordinated Construction Co. Pty. Ltd. v. J.M. Hargreaves (NSW) Pty. Ltd. & Ors. [2005] NSWCA 228

Coordinated Construction Co. Pty. Ltd. v. J.M. Hargreaves (NSW) Pty. Ltd. & Ors. [2005] NSWCA 228

Delay damages and interest payable under this subcontract could be claimed as amounts due for construction work carried out or for related goods and services supplied, and it was for the adjudicators to determine whether such amounts should be included in the progress payments having regard to s.9(a), the Act and the contract. No error of law on the face of the record, vitiating error under Brodyn, or unlawful act justifying injunctive relief was established, and leave to re-argue Brodyn was not warranted in this case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division Proceedings Seeking Declarations That Adjudication Determinations Under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 Were Void or Orders Quashing Them / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['progress Payments' 'security of Payment Adjudication' 'delay Damages' 'interest Under Construction Contract' 'jurisdictional Error' 'certiorari' 'validity of Adjudication Determinations']
['building and Construction' 'administrative Law' 'contract Law'] ['progress Payments' 'security of Payment Adjudication' 'delay Damages' 'interest Under Construction Contract' 'jurisdictional Error' 'certiorari' 'validity of Adjudication Determinations']

Case Brief

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

Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division Proceedings Seeking Declarations That Adjudication Determinations Under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 Were Void or Orders Quashing Them / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether amounts claimed as delay damages under cl 34.9 of the subcontract were amounts for construction work or related goods and services capable of inclusion in a progress payment under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999.' 'Whether interest claimed under cl 37.5 of the subcontract could be included in an adjudicated progress payment.' 'Whether, if the adjudicators included amounts not for construction work, that error made the determinations void or unlawful.' 'Whether leave should be granted to re-argue Brodyn Pty. Ltd. v. Davenport concerning invalidity and certiorari for adjudication determinations.']

Ratio Decidendi

Delay damages and interest payable under this subcontract could be claimed as amounts due for construction work carried out or for related goods and services supplied, and it was for the adjudicators to determine whether such amounts should be included in the progress payments having regard to s.9(a), the Act and the contract. No error of law on the face of the record, vitiating error under Brodyn, or unlawful act justifying injunctive relief was established, and leave to re-argue Brodyn was not warranted in this case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']