Greenwood Futures v DSD Builders

The matter before the court involved Greenwood Futures, the plaintiff, and DSD Builders, the defendant, in a dispute concerning a building and construction contract. The plaintiff sought to challenge an adjudicator’s determination under the Security of Payment Act, arguing that the adjudicator failed to properly discharge his statutory functions. The plaintiff also contended that two of its payment claims were invalid due to the absence of a supporting statement, and that the adjudicator failed to value the construction work. The court was required to decide these issues and determine the appropriate costs.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the first and second payment claims were invalid due to the absence of a supporting statement, and whether the third payment claim was supported by a separate reference date. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the adjudicator failed to discharge his statutory functions by not valuing the construction work. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Security of Payment Act and relevant case law to determine the validity of the payment claims and the adjudicator’s actions.

In addressing the validity of the payment claims, the court found that the first and second payment claims were invalid as they did not include a supporting statement, following the weight of first-instance authority. However, the third payment claim was supported by a separate reference date, rendering it valid. The court also ruled that there was no requirement for the adjudicator to value the construction work, as the contract determined the progress payment amounts for each milestone. Consequently, the adjudicator had discharged his statutory functions. Regarding the costs, the court held that each party should bear its own costs, as the defendant’s actions in disregarding the Security of Payment Act were not sufficient grounds for awarding costs against them, given the compensatory and not punitive function of costs.

The court’s final orders were that the application to quash the adjudicator’s determination was dismissed, and each party was to bear its own costs. The court held that the third payment claim was valid, and the adjudicator had properly discharged his statutory functions. The absence of a supporting statement rendered the first and second payment claims invalid, but this did not affect the validity of the adjudicator’s determination.