Property & Equity Developments v Parnell [2004] NSWSC 1035

Property & Equity Developments v Parnell [2004] NSWSC 1035

The payment claim was a single claim and the construction work to which it related had to be considered as a whole. Because some tasks for which payment was sought were carried out within twelve months before service of the payment claim, the whole payment claim was within time under section 13(4)(b), so the plaintiff's jurisdictional challenge failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Proceeding in the Equity Division Seeking to Quash an Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 and Restrain Enforcement / Final Determination of Summons
Outcome
Payment claim valid; summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999' 'payment Claim' 'adjudication Determination' 'time for Serving Payment Claim' 'section 13(4)(b)']
['building and Construction' 'equity'] ['building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999' 'payment Claim' 'adjudication Determination' 'time for Serving Payment Claim' 'section 13(4)(b)']

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

Proceeding in the Equity Division Seeking to Quash an Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 and Restrain Enforcement / Final Determination of Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the payment claim served on 1 June 2004 was invalid because parts of the claimed amount related to invoices dated more than 12 months before service.' 'Whether the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to make the adjudication determination.' 'How to identify the time when "the construction work to which the claim relates was last carried out" for the purposes of section 13(4)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999.']

Ratio Decidendi

The payment claim was a single claim and the construction work to which it related had to be considered as a whole. Because some tasks for which payment was sought were carried out within twelve months before service of the payment claim, the whole payment claim was within time under section 13(4)(b), so the plaintiff's jurisdictional challenge failed.

Court Disposition

Payment claim valid; summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed.' 'Plaintiff to pay costs of defendants.']