Glen Eight v Home Building

In the matter of Glen Eight and Home Building, the court dealt with an application for an injunction to prevent the builder from applying for an adjudication certificate under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999. The dispute arose from a construction project where the builder sought payment for additional work done and materials supplied, and the homeowner sought to prevent the builder from obtaining an adjudication certificate. The court was required to decide whether an injunction should be issued to restrain the builder from applying for the certificate, the terms upon which such an injunction would be issued, and whether security should be provided for the payment of the amount of the adjudication determination plus interest, as well as for the amount of the adjudicator's fees not paid by the homeowner.

The court considered the balance of convenience and the likelihood of the applicant succeeding in the underlying proceeding. It was noted that the applicant had raised a serious question to be tried, and the court was satisfied that the applicant had made out a case for an interlocutory injunction. The court also considered the need to protect the applicant from irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction and that the applicant had demonstrated a real prospect of success at the trial. The court then considered the issue of security for costs, including the payment of the adjudication determination plus interest and the adjudicator's fees not paid by the homeowner. The court ordered that security be provided in the form of a bond or an undertaking in the sum of $100,000 for the amount of the adjudication determination plus interest, and a further $10,000 for the amount of the adjudicator's fees not paid by the homeowner.

The court granted the injunction restraining the builder from applying for an adjudication certificate relating to the determination of the underlying proceeding. The injunction was to be subject to the applicant providing security in the specified amounts. The court noted that the security was not intended to be punitive but rather to ensure that the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was ultimately found to be unjustified. The court also noted that the security was not to be regarded as a deposit but rather as a form of security for costs. The court ordered that the injunction and security terms were to remain in place until the final determination of the underlying proceeding.