M+W Singapore Pte Ltd v Anstee-Brook

The case of M+W Singapore Pte Ltd v Anstee-Brook involved a dispute between M+W Singapore Pte Ltd and Brookfield, with Anstee-Brook acting as the respondent. The dispute centred around a payment claim made under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) and the subsequent adjudication of this claim. The matter was brought before the court as an application for judicial review, seeking to quash the decision of the adjudicator, Mr Anstee-Brook. The court was required to determine whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision in question and whether the decision was appropriate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision in question. The court had to consider whether the application for adjudication was made within the required 28-day period as stipulated in section 26 of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA). The parties agreed that the application for adjudication was not made within the required timeframe, and therefore, the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to make the decision. The court also had to determine the appropriate form of relief to grant in the circumstances. Specifically, the court had to decide whether it was necessary to order the adjudicator to deliver up the decision for the purpose of being quashed or whether it was sufficient to simply order that the decision be quashed.

The court found that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to make the decision in question because the application for adjudication was not made within the required 28-day period. The court was satisfied that the parties had agreed that the adjudicator's decision should be quashed, and that the order sought by the applicant was appropriate. The court also found that it was not necessary to order the adjudicator to deliver up the decision for the purpose of being quashed, as it was sufficient to simply order that the decision be quashed. The court made an order quashing the adjudicator's decision and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the action. The court made no order as to the costs of the action between the applicant and the other party or between the respondent and the other party.