Legal Research
Cases
Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James

Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James

Link copied

Case Copied 16 January 2015 79 min read

Contents

On this page

HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD -v- JAMES [2015] WASC 10

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 10
Case No:	CIV:1774/2014	Heard:	22 DECEMBER 2014
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	16/01/15
No of pages:	55	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application to set aside adjudication determination dismissed Application for leave to enforce adjudication determination stayed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD LAURIE EDMOND JAMES FORGE GROUP CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD (FORMERLY CIMECO PTY LTD) (IN LIQ) (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
Catchwords:	Administrative law Prerogative writs Whether determination by an adjudicator under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) should be set aside on grounds of jurisdictional error Turns on own facts Bankruptcy and insolvency Company in liquidation Whether company in liquidation should be given leave to enforce adjudication determination under Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) Respondent asserting counterclaim Relevance and operation of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 553C Building and construction Security of payment legislation Whether adjudication determination should be set aside for jurisdictional error Whether leave to enforce as a judgment should be given
Legislation:	Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 31, s 43 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 553C
Case References:	Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Agostini [No 2] [2009] WASCA 231 Attorney-General of Botswana v Aussie Diamond Products Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASC 301 Cape Range Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Austral Construction Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 304 Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576 Coventry v Charter Pacific Corp Ltd [2005] HCA 67; (2005) 227 CLR 234 Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 GM & AM Pearce & Co Pty Ltd v RGM Australia Pty Ltd [1998] 4 VR 888 Halkat Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Holmwood Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 32 Handberg v Smarter Way (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 469; (2002) 190 ALR 130 Hiley v The People's Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 468 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 495 JLF Bakeries Pty Ltd (in liq) v Baker's Delight Holdings Ltd [2007] NSWSC 894; (2007) 64 ACSR 633 Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531 Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v H&M Engineering & Construction Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 818 McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [2013] WASCA 135 McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 6] [2010] WASC 274 Mijatovic v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2008] WASCA 115; (2008) 37 WAR 149 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend [1986] HCA 40 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; (2002) 209 CLR 597 MK Builders Pty Ltd v 36 Warrigal Road Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 149 O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 58; (2008) 36 WAR 479 Perrinepod Pty Ltd…

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 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James 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 10
Decision Date: 16/01/15

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, a company in liquidation, brought an application against James, who sought to set aside an adjudication determination under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA). The adjudication had ruled in favour of Hamersley Iron in relation to a payment dispute. James contended that the adjudicator had made a jurisdictional error and that the company in liquidation should not be given leave to enforce the determination. James further argued that a counterclaim he had asserted should be considered under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), specifically section 553C.

The court had to determine whether the adjudicator's determination should be set aside due to jurisdictional error and whether Hamersley Iron, being a company in liquidation, should be granted leave to enforce the adjudication determination. The court also had to consider the relevance of section 553C of the Corporations Act in the context of James' counterclaim. The court assessed whether the adjudicator's determination should stand, whether there was a jurisdictional error, and if Hamersley Iron's status as a company in liquidation affected its ability to enforce the determination.

The court held that the adjudicator's determination should not be set aside as no jurisdictional error was found. However, considering the company's status in liquidation, the court stayed the application for leave to enforce the adjudication determination. The court reasoned that, while the adjudication determination was valid, enforcing it as a judgment was complicated by the company's insolvency status. The court found that the application to set aside the adjudication determination was dismissed, but the application for leave to enforce the determination was stayed pending further clarification on the company's insolvency status and the impact on enforcing the determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to set aside adjudication determination dismissed

Application for leave to enforce adjudication determination stayed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.