Quasar Constructions v A J Stockman Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 117

Quasar Constructions v A J Stockman Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 117

The adjudicator did not commit jurisdictional error. Section 10(1)(b) required the adjudicator to have regard to the contract price and other specified matters, but did not impose the proportional valuation method advanced by the plaintiff. The contract price of $945,000 and the claimed amount of $107,600 were before the adjudicator, and in accepting the claim he took the contract price into account. The adjudicator also considered the parties' competing contentions about the Works Completed Schedules and exercised judgment rather than merely rubber stamping them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 / Summons Seeking an Order in the Nature of Certiorari Quashing an Adjudication Determination
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error of Law' 'security of Payment Adjudication' 'valuation of Construction Work' 'progress Payments']
['administrative Law' 'building and Construction' 'equity'] ['judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error of Law' 'security of Payment Adjudication' 'valuation of Construction Work' 'progress Payments']

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

Judicial Review of Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 / Summons Seeking an Order in the Nature of Certiorari Quashing an Adjudication Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the adjudicator fell into jurisdictional error of law by failing to determine the amount of the progress payment in accordance with ss.8(2)(b), 9(b) and 10(1)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999.' 'Whether s.10(1)(b) required the adjudicator to value the work by adopting a proportional approach by reference to the contract price.' 'Whether the adjudicator failed to make his own determination of the value of the work by merely adopting signed Works Completed Schedules.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator did not commit jurisdictional error. Section 10(1)(b) required the adjudicator to have regard to the contract price and other specified matters, but did not impose the proportional valuation method advanced by the plaintiff. The contract price of $945,000 and the claimed amount of $107,600 were before the adjudicator, and in accepting the claim he took the contract price into account. The adjudicator also considered the parties' competing contentions about the Works Completed Schedules and exercised judgment rather than merely rubber stamping them.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed with costs.']