Transgrid v. Siemens Ltd. & Anor. [2004] NSWCA 395

Transgrid v. Siemens Ltd. & Anor. [2004] NSWCA 395

Errors by the adjudicator in failing to calculate the progress payment strictly in accordance with the contract or in including variations not strictly certified by the Superintendent amount to errors of law, but do not constitute jurisdictional error or render the determination void. Judicial review is only available for failure of an essential pre-condition to a valid adjudicator's determination under the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Transgrid (A Statutory State Owned Corporation); Respondent: Siemens Limited; Respondent: Timothy Sullivan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division (master Macready)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Progress Payments, Judicial Review, Construction Contracts, Adjudicator's Determination, Jurisdictional Error, Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
Building and Construction Law Administrative Law Progress Payments Judicial Review Construction Contracts Adjudicator's Determination Jurisdictional Error Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transgrid (A Statutory State Owned Corporation)

Appellant

Siemens Limited

Respondent

Timothy Sullivan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Equity Division (master Macready)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicator's determination under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 is reviewable for jurisdictional error if the adjudicator fails to determine the amount calculated in accordance with the contract.
  2. 2 Whether an adjudicator is bound by the payment certificate issued by the Superintendent under the contract per s.9(a) of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether inclusion of variations not approved by the Superintendent is a jurisdictional error.

Ratio Decidendi

Errors by the adjudicator in failing to calculate the progress payment strictly in accordance with the contract or in including variations not strictly certified by the Superintendent amount to errors of law, but do not constitute jurisdictional error or render the determination void. Judicial review is only available for failure of an essential pre-condition to a valid adjudicator's determination under the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.