Martinus Rail Pty Ltd v Qube RE Services (No 2) Pty Ltd (No 3)

In this case, Martinus Rail Pty Ltd was the plaintiff and Qube RE Services (No 2) Pty Ltd (No 3) was the defendant. The dispute concerned adjudication of payment claims under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with Justice Brereton presiding. The primary issue was whether the adjudicator was required to provide reasons for their decision and whether they were obligated to consider the respondent’s submissions, particularly in the context of determining "legal unreasonableness" and jurisdictional error.

The court was required to decide whether the adjudicator had an obligation to provide reasons for their decision, and if so, whether the absence of such reasons constituted a jurisdictional error. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the adjudicator was required to consider the respondent’s submissions in the adjudication process and whether the failure to do so amounted to legal unreasonableness or jurisdictional error. These questions were crucial in assessing the validity of the adjudicator's decision and whether the adjudicator's actions had rendered the adjudication process unfair or unlawful.

The court concluded that the adjudicator was not required to provide reasons for their decision, and therefore, the absence of reasons did not constitute a jurisdictional error. However, the court found that the adjudicator did have an obligation to consider the respondent’s submissions to ensure a fair adjudication process. The failure to consider the respondent’s submissions was deemed to amount to legal unreasonableness, which could potentially render the adjudication process flawed. The court also addressed the issue of costs, determining that they should follow the event on a claim-by-claim basis, with apportionment based on costs solely referable to each claim. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs solely referable to unsuccessful or not-pressed claims, while the first defendant was to pay the plaintiff’s costs of proceedings.