Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz [2018] HCA 5

Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz [2018] HCA 5

The retention provisions in the subcontract made the due dates for payment contingent or dependent on the operation of the head contract, rendering them pay when paid provisions under s 12(2)(c) of the Security of Payment Act. The adjudicator made no error of law, and in any event, the Act ousts the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari for mere error of law that is not jurisdictional.

Parties
Appellant: Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Michael Christopher Vadasz (trading as Australasian Piling Company); Respondents: Second and third respondents
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Pay When Paid Provisions, Security of Payment, Certiorari, Jurisdictional Error
Administrative Law Building and Construction Law Judicial Review Pay When Paid Provisions Security of Payment Certiorari 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd

Appellant

Michael Christopher Vadasz (trading as Australasian Piling Company)

First Respondent

Second and third respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator erred in law in determining retention provisions as 'pay when paid' provisions under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA)
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator's determination involved a jurisdictional error justifying judicial review and certiorari
  3. 3 Whether the Security of Payment Act ousts the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari for non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record

Ratio Decidendi

The retention provisions in the subcontract made the due dates for payment contingent or dependent on the operation of the head contract, rendering them pay when paid provisions under s 12(2)(c) of the Security of Payment Act. The adjudicator made no error of law, and in any event, the Act ousts the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari for mere error of law that is not jurisdictional.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Condition of special leave requires Maxcon to pay Mr Vadasz's costs; no further order as to costs