Legal Research
Cases
Delmere Holdings Pty Ltd v Green

Delmere Holdings Pty Ltd v Green

Link copied

Case Copied 24 April 2015 60 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION	:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL
CITATION	:	DELMERE HOLDINGS PTY LTD -v- GREEN [2015] WASC 148
CORAM	:	KENNETH MARTIN J
HEARD	:	13 MARCH 2015
DELIVERED	:	24 APRIL 2015
FILE NO/S	:	CIV 1090 of 2015
BETWEEN	:	DELMERE HOLDINGS PTY LTD Applicant
BARRY GREEN Respondent
ALLIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD Other Party
FILE NO/S	:	CIV 2758 of 2014
BETWEEN	:	ALLIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD Plaintiff
DELMERE HOLDINGS PTY LTD Defendant
Catchwords:

Public law - Error of law - Certiorari - Jurisdictional facts - Jurisdictional errors - Adjudicator under Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Broad or narrow jurisdictional facts - Misconstrual of statute - Misinterpretation of nature of function or extent of powers - Irrational or unreasonable conclusion - Unjust enrichment 'in equity' - Quantum meruit - Implied term

[2015] WASC 148

Legislation:

Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 6, s 25, s 26, s 31

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 56

Result:

Application allowed

Certiorari issued

Category: A

Representation:

CIV 1090 of 2015

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr D S Ellis
Respondent	:	No appearance
Other Party	:	Mr C S Williams

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Tottle Partners
Respondent	:	No appearance
Other Party	:	Solomon Brothers

CIV 2758 of 2014

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr C S Williams
Defendant	:	Mr D S Ellis

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Solomon Brothers
Defendant	:	Tottle Partners

[2015] WASC 148

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

ABB Power Generation Ltd v Chapple [2001] WASCA 412; (2001) 25 WAR

158

ASIC v Edwards [2005] NSWSC 831; (2005) 220 ALR 148

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1

KB 223

Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd [2014]

HCA 14; (2014) 307 ALR 512

Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd [2009] HCA 44; (2009) 239 CLR 269

Cape Range Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Austral Construction Pty Ltd

[2012] WASC 304

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24;

(1982) 149 CLR 337

Craig v The State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163

David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48;

(1992) 175 CLR 353

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton [2012] HCA 7; (2012) 246 CLR 498

Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v SC Projects Australia Pty Ltd [2015]

WASC 60

Gedeon v Commissioner of New South Wales Crime Commission [2008] HCA

43; (2008) 236 CLR 120

Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10

Ideas Plus Investments Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd [2006] WASCA 215;

(2006) 32 WAR 467

Lampson (Australia) Pty Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [No 3] [2014]

WASC 162

Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) [2008] HCA 27; (2008) 232 CLR

635

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21;

(1999) 197 CLR 611

Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78; (1985) 160 CLR…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Delmere Holdings Pty Ltd v Green and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] WASC 148
Decision Date: 24 APRIL 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Delmere Holdings Pty Ltd sought relief against the adjudicator's decision under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), claiming it was based on a jurisdictional error. The dispute centred around the interpretation of jurisdictional facts and whether the adjudicator misconstrued the statute, leading to an unjust enrichment in equity. The Supreme Court of Western Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the adjudicator's decision and whether it should be quashed.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision and if there was a jurisdictional error that warranted relief under the common law or equitable principles. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the adjudicator misconstrued the statutory provisions, whether the error was one of jurisdiction or merely an error in the exercise of discretion, and if the adjudicator's decision resulted in an unjust enrichment 'in equity'. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the adjudicator's decision led to an unjust enrichment under the doctrine of quantum meruit and if there was an implied term that could be invoked.

In its reasoning, the court examined the adjudicator's decision and found that there was indeed a jurisdictional error. The adjudicator had misinterpreted the nature of the function and the extent of the powers under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), which led to an irrational or unreasonable conclusion. The court found that the adjudicator's error was not just an error in the exercise of discretion but a fundamental misinterpretation of jurisdictional facts. Consequently, the court quashed the adjudicator's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration by a new adjudicator. The court also clarified that the principles of unjust enrichment in equity and quantum meruit were not applicable in this context, as the adjudicator's decision did not result in an unjust enrichment.

Orders