Hitachi Ltd v O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd

Hitachi Ltd, a subcontractor, sought judicial review of two adjudication decisions concerning progress payments under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Payments Act). The first adjudication considered selected larger variation claims, while the second adjudication did not address numerous smaller claims. Hitachi argued that the adjudicator failed to examine every variation in the large claims as required by the legislative intent and procedural fairness. The dispute centred on whether the adjudicator acted in good faith and whether the adjudication process was fair.

The court examined whether section 26 of the Payments Act required the adjudicator to consider every single variation in a large claim. The court also assessed if the adjudicator's decision was made without bias and whether procedural fairness was observed. Furthermore, the court evaluated if the value of certain variation claims had been "previously decided" for the purposes of section 27 of the Payments Act. The court also considered whether the subsequent adjudicator’s treatment of these claims constituted a jurisdictional error.

The court held that the adjudicator did not need to examine every single variation in a large claim to act in accordance with the legislative intent and procedural fairness. The court found that the adjudicator acted in good faith and observed procedural fairness. The court also concluded that the value of certain claims had not been "previously decided" for the purposes of section 27, and therefore, the subsequent adjudicator's treatment of those claims did not constitute a jurisdictional error. The court further found that the party's inconsistent approaches in the two adjudications did not amount to an abuse of process or a denial of natural justice.

The court dismissed the application related to the first adjudication and allowed the application concerning the second adjudication. The second adjudication was set aside as void.