Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd v Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd

The dispute before the court involved Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd, the design and construct contractor for the Sydney Light Rail Project, and Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd, the supplier of ready mixed concrete. Holcim claimed that it had not been paid for concrete supplied under several purchase orders and initiated a payment claim. Acciona responded with a nil payment schedule and the matter was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator, appointed by Holcim, determined in favour of Holcim for $2,953,035.57. Acciona then challenged the adjudicator's determination, asserting that Holcim's claim was invalid because it covered work under more than one contract and that procedural fairness was denied.

The court had to decide whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the determination and whether procedural fairness was observed. The primary issue was whether the claim covered work under more than one contract, which would render the adjudicator's jurisdiction invalid. Additionally, the court needed to determine if Acciona was denied procedural fairness, thereby vitiating the determination. The court's analysis focused on the statutory requirements under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) and the principles of natural justice.

The court found that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction because Holcim's payment claim covered work under more than one contract. The court also held that Acciona was denied procedural fairness, as the adjudicator did not give Acciona an adequate opportunity to respond to certain arguments. Consequently, the court concluded that the adjudicator had not properly discharged her statutory obligations to ensure that the work claimed for had been done and to assess its value. As a result, the determination made by the adjudicator was invalid.

The court declared that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction, that Acciona had been denied procedural fairness, and that the adjudicator had failed to discharge her statutory duties. The court's decision effectively nullified the adjudicator's determination and left the parties to resolve the dispute through further adjudication or litigation.