Filadelfia Projects Pty Ltd v Entirity Business Services Pty Ltd

Filadelfia Projects Pty Ltd brought an application against Entirity Business Services Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking to enforce an adjudicator's determination under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999. The dispute involved the interpretation of an informal agreement and the identification of the parties to the contract. The primary issue was whether the contract was between the builder and the contractor, or between the developer and the contractor.

The court was required to determine the relevance of post-contractual conduct in identifying the parties to the contract. It was necessary to objectively determine who the parties were, and whether the conduct of the parties post-contract was relevant in determining the contractual relationship. The court also needed to consider whether the failure to supply the same documents to the adjudicator and the opposing party amounted to a denial of natural justice, and whether relief should be refused in circumstances where the conduct was not deliberate and the issue was determined on the merits by the court.

The court found that the contract was between the builder and the contractor, and not between the developer and the contractor. The court held that the post-contractual conduct of the parties was relevant in determining the contractual relationship, and that the failure to supply the same documents to the adjudicator and the opposing party amounted to a denial of natural justice. However, the court also held that relief should not be refused in circumstances where the conduct was not deliberate and the issue was determined on the merits by the court. The court found that the deliberate withholding of relevant documents from the adjudicator constituted an abuse of process, but held that there was no duty of full disclosure in the adjudication process.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed, and that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application on an indemnity basis. The court held that the failure to supply the same documents to the adjudicator and the opposing party constituted a denial of natural justice, but that the issue had been determined on the merits by the court. The court also held that the deliberate withholding of relevant documents from the adjudicator constituted an abuse of process, but that there was no duty of full disclosure in the adjudication process.