Artmade Architectural v JOSEPH

In the District Court of New South Wales, Judge Manousaridis considered a dispute between Artmade Architectural Pty Ltd (the applicant) and Mr Joseph (the respondent). The applicant sought to enforce an adjudicator's determination made under the *Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999* (NSW) (the Act). The respondent sought to set aside the adjudication determination on the grounds that it was affected by jurisdictional error.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the adjudicator had committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider a crucial aspect of the respondent's defence. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the adjudicator's decision to proceed with the adjudication without adequately addressing the respondent's claim that the payment claim was invalid due to alleged defects in the work, constituted a failure to exercise jurisdiction or a mere error of law within jurisdiction.

Judge Manousaridis reasoned that for an adjudicator to have jurisdiction under the Act, they must consider all relevant matters raised by the parties. The respondent had raised a defence concerning alleged defects in the work, which, if established, could render the payment claim invalid. The Court found that the adjudicator had not properly considered this defence, instead focusing solely on the applicant's entitlement to progress payments. This failure to engage with a substantive defence raised by the respondent amounted to a jurisdictional error, as the adjudicator had not undertaken the task required by the Act.

Consequently, the Court set aside the adjudicator's determination.