INPEX Operations Australia Pty Ltd v JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd (No 2)

INPEX Operations Australia Pty Ltd v JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd (No 2) involved a dispute regarding the adjudication process under the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act 2004 (NT). The unsuccessful defendant, JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd, sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the adjudicator to extend the time for making a determination, following an order in the nature of certiorari that quashed the adjudicator's initial determination. The plaintiff, INPEX Operations Australia Pty Ltd, opposed this application, arguing that the adjudicator had no power to extend the time once it had expired. The court was tasked with determining whether the adjudicator could extend the time for making a determination after the statutory deadline had passed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the adjudicator had the authority to extend the time for making a determination under the Act after the statutory deadline had expired. JKC argued that the adjudicator had a duty to perform their functions under the Act, including making a decision or determination as to liability, and that the court should compel the adjudicator to do so. INPEX, on the other hand, contended that the Act precluded the adjudicator from making a determination once the statutory time limit had elapsed, as the Act deemed the application to have been dismissed if the time limit was not met.

The court found that the adjudicator had no power to extend the time for making a determination under the Act once the statutory deadline had expired. It held that section 33(2) of the Act deemed the application to have been dismissed if the time limit was not met, which precluded the adjudicator from making a determination. The court reasoned that it would be inappropriate to order the adjudicator to make a determination if the Act precluded them from doing so. The court further distinguished the Northern Territory legislation from the Victorian legislation, noting that the latter did not contain a provision similar to section 33(2) of the Northern Territory Act.

The court refused to make an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the adjudicator to extend the time for making a determination. The court's decision was based on its interpretation of the statutory provisions and the consequences of not complying with the time limits set out in the Act.