Builtcom Construction Pty Ltd v VSD Investments Pty Ltd atf the VSD Investments Trust; VSD Investments Pty Ltd atf the VSD Investments Trust v Builtcom Construction Pty Ltd

The parties involved in this case were Builtcom Construction Pty Ltd and VSD Investments Pty Ltd atf the VSD Investments Trust. The dispute revolved around issues of adjudication in the building and construction sector, with both parties seeking judicial review of an adjudicator's determination. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the adjudicator's determination was affected by a jurisdictional error, specifically whether the adjudicator erroneously found that certain submissions were not "duly made" or failed to consider submissions about set-off. Additionally, the court had to determine whether orders should be made in the nature of mandamus to compel the adjudicator to determine parts of the adjudication application that remained undetermined due to the jurisdictional error. Another issue was whether a declaration should be made about the validity of a new adjudication application.

The court examined the nature and scope of the adjudicator's jurisdiction and considered whether the alleged errors were jurisdictional in nature. It held that the adjudicator's failure to consider certain submissions about set-off did not constitute a jurisdictional error. The court found that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the application but had failed to exercise that jurisdiction properly by not considering the set-off submissions. As a result, the court concluded that the adjudicator's determination was affected by a jurisdictional error. The court further held that orders in the nature of mandamus should be made to compel the adjudicator to determine the parts of the adjudication application that remained undetermined because of this jurisdictional error. The court also considered whether a declaration about the validity of a new adjudication application should be made but ultimately found that this was not necessary given the outcome of the case.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the adjudicator's determination was affected by a jurisdictional error due to the failure to consider submissions about set-off. The court also made orders in the nature of mandamus compelling the adjudicator to determine the parts of the adjudication application that remained undetermined because of this jurisdictional error. No declaration about the validity of a new adjudication application was made.