30 Oct 2020
The sealed order dated 6 October 2020 was quashed and replaced because it did not accurately record the Court's judgment and minute; under r 11.10 the Court may correct such an error, and the amended order set out the correct directions including payment into trust and the correct costs figure.
29 Mar 2018
The Court held s 59(2)(a)(ii) applies only to recovery proceedings pursued under s 59(2)(a) and does not confer a statutory right to recover 'actual and reasonable costs' on applications to enforce an adjudicator's determination by entry as a judgment under s 59(2)(c)/s 73; costs for enforcement by registration are at the District Court's discretion under ordinary costs principles. The District Court costs order was set aside and remitted for reconsideration accordingly.
15 Mar 2017
Leave was granted because the disputed construction claims are complex and more appropriately resolved by arbitration, the claims are more than arguable (supported by the adjudicator's findings), arbitration may assist wider recovery given concurrent proceedings against the director who transferred assets, and it was appropriate to extend time to serve notice and permit enforcement proceedings in the District Court.
13 Sept 2016
The application to recall was dismissed because the respondent effectively sought variation of the District Court's order on interest without having filed a cross-appeal; the appellate court will not vary the lower court's judgment on post-judgment interest in those circumstances, so recall was unnecessary and inappropriate (the court did not need to decide definitively whether clause 55 excluded merger).
2 Sept 2011
Summary judgment was dismissed because there is a genuine, material evidential dispute whether a construction contract existed (so adjudicator jurisdiction is arguable and cannot be resolved on summary judgment) and because awards described as damages for breach are not necessarily 'payments under' a construction contract enforceable under s59; if no qualifying contract exists the adjudication is void and not enforceable.
26 Jul 2006
Applicant failed to establish a substantial dispute or a viable counterclaim/set-off because the issues relied upon were the subject of the adjudicator's determination which is enforceable under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 and the statutory framework (including s 79) and authorities permit enforcement and prevent re-litigation; accordingly the statutory demands cannot be set aside and the application is dismissed.
6 Apr 2006
The High Court will not exercise its discretionary judicial review jurisdiction to hear the substantive challenge at this stage because the District Court is competent to determine the issues (including jurisdiction to award interest and any estoppel), the Construction Contracts Act provides a summary enforcement regime intended as a provisional cashflow measure, and there is no apparent residual risk of uncorrected illegality requiring High Court intervention; accordingly the scheduled fixture is vacated and the parties left to the District Court with leave to apply for a substantive High Co…