Douglas Aerospace v Indistri Engineering Albury [2014] NSWSC 1445

Douglas Aerospace v Indistri Engineering Albury [2014] NSWSC 1445

The summons failed because the Stage 2 contract was, on balance, a construction contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant; the s 17(2)(a) notice was given and received within the time limits prescribed by s 17; and the adjudication application was received, so no asserted jurisdictional error was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Seeking an Order Quashing an Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment on Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['adjudication Applications' 'construction Contract Formation and Identity of Contracting Parties' 'payment Claims' 'notice of Intention to Seek Adjudication Under S 17(2)(a)' 'service of Adjudication Application Under S 17(5)' 'jurisdictional Error']
['building and Construction' 'security of Payment' 'judicial Review'] ['adjudication Applications' 'construction Contract Formation and Identity of Contracting Parties' 'payment Claims' 'notice of Intention to Seek Adjudication Under S 17(2)(a)' 'service of Adjudication Application Under S 17(5)' 'jurisdictional Error']

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

Proceedings Seeking an Order Quashing an Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a construction contract between Douglas Aerospace Pty Ltd and Indistri Engineering Albury Pty Ltd.' 'Whether Indistri Engineering Albury Pty Ltd gave Douglas Aerospace Pty Ltd notice under s 17(2)(a) of its intention to apply for adjudication.' 'Whether a copy of the adjudication application was served on Douglas Aerospace Pty Ltd as required by s 17(5).']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons failed because the Stage 2 contract was, on balance, a construction contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant; the s 17(2)(a) notice was given and received within the time limits prescribed by s 17; and the adjudication application was received, so no asserted jurisdictional error was established.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's summons filed on 12 August 2014 is dismissed with costs." 'The exhibits are to be handed out once these reasons have been revised.']