Inten Constructions v Refine Electrical Services

In the case of Inten Constructions v Refine Electrical Services, the dispute arose from a claim by the first defendant, Refine Electrical Services, for payment under a sub-contract. Inten Constructions, the plaintiff, disputed the claim and argued that there was no contractual basis for it. The matter was referred to adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW). The adjudicator found in favour of the first defendant, ruling that the claim was supported by the contract. The plaintiff then challenged the validity of the adjudication determination, asserting that the adjudicator failed to adhere to principles of natural justice and lacked impartiality and good faith.

The central legal issues were whether the adjudicator was required or entitled to consider the relevant provisions of the contract, and whether the adjudicator's failure to provide reasons for rejecting the plaintiff's approach rendered the adjudication determination void. The court had to examine if the adjudicator's actions were in line with the principles of natural justice and whether they displayed impartiality and good faith. Furthermore, the court considered if the adjudication determination could be upheld in light of the authority established by Brodyn v Davenport.

The court determined that the adjudicator was indeed required to consider the relevant provisions of the contract under s 22(2)(b)-(d) of the Act. While the adjudicator did consider the plaintiff's adjudication response, the court held that the principles of natural justice were not violated because the adjudicator provided an opportunity for the plaintiff to respond to the claim. Although the adjudicator did not expressly state the reasons for rejecting the plaintiff's approach, this did not render the adjudication determination void. The court found that the adjudicator acted impartially and in good faith, and did not contravene the principles outlined in Brodyn v Davenport. Consequently, the adjudication determination was upheld, and the first defendant's claim for payment was affirmed.