Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz (No 2)

Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd brought an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision concerning a building contract between the plaintiff and Vadasz. The plaintiff claimed that the adjudicator failed to properly interpret the contract and made errors in determining that the plaintiff was not entitled to administrative charges and retention monies. The court had to decide whether the adjudicator's decision contained jurisdictional errors or errors of law that would warrant judicial review.

The court examined the grounds for judicial review, including whether the adjudicator failed to consider relevant admissions made by the first defendant. The court found that the adjudicator did consider the email in question and concluded that it did not constitute a relevant admission. Even if the adjudicator had erred in this regard, it was an error within jurisdiction and not apparent on the face of the record. The court also found that the adjudicator did not err in law in determining that the plaintiff was not entitled to administrative charges and retention monies. The court concluded that none of the grounds for judicial review were made out.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered the parties to discuss the costs of the proceedings. The adjudicator's decision stood, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the administrative charges and retention monies it had claimed. The court found that the adjudicator had not made any jurisdictional errors or errors of law that would warrant setting aside the decision.