Suprima Bakeries Pty Ltd v Australian Weighing Equipment Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 998

Suprima Bakeries Pty Ltd v Australian Weighing Equipment Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 998

Although Suprima did not establish that the relevant contracts were outside the Act or that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction on that basis, the Adjudicator failed to engage with Suprima's fundamental case that defects made the plant and equipment essentially worthless, failed to reason through whether the defective-work evidence affected value, and wrongly treated the non-inclusion of the Micro Ingredients Stations claim as a sufficient allowance for possible defects. That failure was a failure to perform an essential element of the statutory task and denied Suprima natural justice, so the adjudication determination was void and AWE was restrained from enforcing it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Technology and Construction List Proceeding Challenging an Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Final Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded; the first defendant was restrained from enforcing the adjudication determination and the determination was declared void.
Legal Topics
['adjudication Determination' 'construction Contract' 'construction Work' 'natural Justice' 'defective Work' 'jurisdictional Error' 'valuation of Construction Work']
['building and Construction' 'security of Payment' 'administrative Law'] ['adjudication Determination' 'construction Contract' 'construction Work' 'natural Justice' 'defective Work' 'jurisdictional Error' 'valuation of Construction Work']

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

Equity Technology and Construction List Proceeding Challenging an Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was one contract between Suprima and AWE or several contracts.' 'If there were several contracts, whether each was a construction contract for the purposes of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW).' 'Whether the Adjudicator carried out his statutory function of valuing construction work performed by AWE under any construction contract.' "Whether the Adjudicator denied natural justice to Suprima, or failed to carry out part of the statutory task entrusted by the Act, in dealing with Suprima's claim of defective work."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Suprima did not establish that the relevant contracts were outside the Act or that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction on that basis, the Adjudicator failed to engage with Suprima's fundamental case that defects made the plant and equipment essentially worthless, failed to reason through whether the defective-work evidence affected value, and wrongly treated the non-inclusion of the Micro Ingredients Stations claim as a sufficient allowance for possible defects. That failure was a failure to perform an essential element of the statutory task and denied Suprima natural justice, so the adjudication determination was void and AWE was restrained from enforcing it.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeded; the first defendant was restrained from enforcing the adjudication determination and the determination was declared void.

Orders

  • ["Order that the first defendant be restrained from taking any further steps in relation to or arising from the second defendant's adjudication determination dated 27 November 2015 in relation to adjudication application number ABCDRS NSW 54 (the adjudication determination), including making any request under s.24...