Maxstra NSW Pty Ltd v Blacklabel Services Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 406

Maxstra NSW Pty Ltd v Blacklabel Services Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 406

The adjudicator's exclusion of arguments not raised in the payment schedule was required by section 20(2B) of the Act; there was no jurisdictional error or denial of procedural fairness as the applicant was given the opportunity under the Act to advance its case, and no practical injustice was suffered as alternative valuations were not provided.

Parties
Plaintiff: Maxstra NSW Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Blacklabel Services Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Doron Rivlin; Third Defendant: Adjudicate Today Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Adjudication Determination / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants; proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Security of Payment, Adjudication Determination, Procedural Fairness, Jurisdictional Error, Statutory Interpretation
Building and Construction Law Administrative Law Security of Payment Adjudication Determination Procedural Fairness Jurisdictional Error Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxstra NSW Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Blacklabel Services Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Doron Rivlin

Second Defendant

Adjudicate Today Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Adjudication Determination / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 was affected by jurisdictional error
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator failed to accord procedural fairness by not considering submissions not included in the payment schedule
  3. 3 Whether the payment for design work was within the contract sum or could be claimed separately

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator's exclusion of arguments not raised in the payment schedule was required by section 20(2B) of the Act; there was no jurisdictional error or denial of procedural fairness as the applicant was given the opportunity under the Act to advance its case, and no practical injustice was suffered as alternative valuations were not provided.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants; proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants
  • The plaintiff, Maxstra NSW Pty Ltd, to pay the first defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, as agreed or assessed