De Martin & Gasparini Pty Limited v State Concrete Pty Limited & Ors [2006] NSWSC 31

De Martin & Gasparini Pty Limited v State Concrete Pty Limited & Ors [2006] NSWSC 31

The adjudication determination was void because Mr Sarlos fundamentally denied natural justice by deciding the amount payable on the basis that the amount already paid was less than the amount agreed by the parties, without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and by departing from the value arising from Mr Fowler's prior determination without notice to the parties. That void determination could not found the District Court judgment, and State Concrete's unproven asserted further claim did not justify withholding relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Equity Division Proceedings Seeking Declaration That Adjudication Determination Under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 Was Void and Injunctions Restraining Enforcement / Ex Tempore Judgment After Interlocutory Restraint on Enforcement
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded; the adjudication determination was held void and permanent restraints on enforcement were ordered, with prayer 6 reserved.
Legal Topics
['security of Payment Adjudication' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjudication Determination Validity' 'enforcement of Adjudication Certificate and Judgment']
['building and Construction' 'administrative Law'] ['security of Payment Adjudication' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjudication Determination Validity' 'enforcement of Adjudication Certificate and Judgment']

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

Supreme Court Equity Division Proceedings Seeking Declaration That Adjudication Determination Under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 Was Void and Injunctions Restraining Enforcement / Ex Tempore Judgment After Interlocutory Restraint on Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the adjudicator denied natural justice by determining the amount already paid on a basis inconsistent with the parties' agreed or conventional basis without notice to them." 'Whether the adjudicator denied natural justice by departing from the value arising from a prior adjudication determination without notifying the parties and giving them an opportunity to be heard.' 'Whether the adjudication determination was void and incapable of founding a judgment.' 'Whether discretionary matters relied upon by State Concrete justified withholding relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudication determination was void because Mr Sarlos fundamentally denied natural justice by deciding the amount payable on the basis that the amount already paid was less than the amount agreed by the parties, without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and by departing from the value arising from Mr Fowler's prior determination without notice to the parties. That void determination could not found the District Court judgment, and State Concrete's unproven asserted further claim did not justify withholding relief.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeded; the adjudication determination was held void and permanent restraints on enforcement were ordered, with prayer 6 reserved.

Orders

  • ['A declaration was made in terms of prayer 1 of the amended summons filed in Court on 11 January 2006.' 'The first defendant was restrained permanently from, by itself, its servants or agents or otherwise, enforcing or seeking to enforce the garnishee order entered by it against the plaintiff on 29 November 2005 in...