Dickson Developments Precinct 5 Pty Ltd v Core Building Group Pty Ltd

The case of Dickson Developments Precinct 5 Pty Ltd v Core Building Group Pty Ltd concerns a judicial review of an adjudicator’s determination in relation to a construction contract. The primary issue was whether there had been a jurisdictional error in the adjudicator’s determination regarding the reference date for a payment claim, whether a particular part of the works was separable, and whether an estoppel by convention applied. The adjudicator had ruled in favour of Core, but Dickson sought to overturn that decision.

The court examined whether a jurisdictional error had been made by the adjudicator. It considered whether Core was entitled to make progress claims after the Certificate of Practical Completion had been issued, and if so, whether Dickson had adopted the same assumption. The court found that while Core had adopted the assumption, Dickson had not, and therefore no conventional estoppel arose. Furthermore, the court noted that Dickson had not accepted the legal validity of Core's claims, instead reserving the right to claim repayment. The court also scrutinised the adjudicator’s reasoning on the reference date for the payment claim and found no evidence that Dickson had assumed the validity of the claim in that regard.

In light of these findings, the court concluded that the adjudicator’s determination contained a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the application for judicial review was allowed, and the adjudicator’s determination was set aside. The first respondent, Core Building Group Pty Ltd, was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding.