30 Nov 2022
R&F failed to prove on the balance of probabilities any ground under section 15 CIPAA to set aside the adjudication decision; accordingly the application to set aside was dismissed and Alpha's application to enforce the adjudication decision under section 28 was allowed, with costs awarded globally.
17 Jan 2022
The High Court held the adjudicator did not breach the second rule of natural justice (and even if a breach occurred it was not material or likely to affect the outcome), the adjudicator acted within CIPAA powers in computing interest, Itramas failed to discharge the burden to obtain a stay and had not lawfully instituted arbitration in breach of mandatory contractual dispute resolution, and consequently enforcement under s28 CIPAA was allowed while the setting aside and stay applications were dismissed.
24 Dec 2020
The High Court refused to set aside the adjudication decision because DB failed to establish any of the limited grounds in s.15 CIPAA: the payment claim was not premature, the adjudicator provided adequate reasons when read contextually, he addressed DB's allegations (fraud, ownership, termination) and there was no denial of natural justice in declining an oral hearing; accordingly OS1 was dismissed and OS2 (enforcement) was allowed and the Decision was enforced with costs.
28 Nov 2019
CIPAA does not confer a general right to file a rejoinder after an adjudication reply; the adjudicator lawfully refused leave to file a rejoinder within his s 25 discretion and complied with s 12(4) by giving reasons; no breach of the second rule of natural justice was established or shown to be material; the High Court will not review merits or reweigh evidence absent a decisive breach; therefore MRCB's originating summons and application for stay are dismissed and Wazam is granted leave to enforce the adjudication decision with costs awarded to Wazam.