Coordinated Construction Co v J M Hargreaves

Coordinated Construction Co, as the principal contractor, brought an action against J M Hargreaves, the principal, seeking a declaration that a determination made by an adjudicator was invalid and an order for payment of the adjudicated amount. The dispute arose from a construction project where the principal contractor claimed that the principal had failed to make an interim payment. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the adjudicator's determination was valid and enforceable. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the determination was void because it included amounts that the adjudicator assumed, but did not decide, were not for construction work. Another issue was whether the determination was unlawful because it breached the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999.

The court examined the requirements of a valid determination under the Act and found that the adjudicator had not fulfilled the basic and essential requirements. The adjudicator had not decided the disputed amount; instead, the adjudicator assumed that certain amounts were not for construction work and included them in the determination. The court held that this assumption was not a decision and therefore, the determination was void. Additionally, the court found that the determination was in breach of the Act because it was not made in accordance with the basic and essential requirements. The court also considered whether the payment claim was served on or from the reference date and concluded that it was. Consequently, the determination was not unlawful because it did not breach the Act. The court found that the determination was invalid and unenforceable.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the adjudicator's determination was invalid and unenforceable. The court found that the determination was void because the adjudicator had not decided the disputed amount and had instead assumed that certain amounts were not for construction work. The court also found that the determination was not in breach of the Act because the payment claim was served on or from the reference date. The court did not make any orders for payment of the adjudicated amount.