MODULAR FORMS PTY LTD and CECICH [2015] WASAT 76
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2015] WASAT 76 | |
| CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ACT 2004 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CC:240/2015 | 28 APRIL 2015 | |
| Coram: | MS K WHITNEY (MEMBER) | 6/07/15 | |
| 34 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MODULAR FORMS PTY LTD MIRO CECICH HELEN CECICH |
Catchwords: | Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) Whether adjudicator empowered to dismiss part of application for adjudication and determine part Whether adjudicator dismissed or determined application for adjudication Meaning of express dismissal Extent of the parties' obligations under the contract Whether provisions of Sch 1 Div 4 to be implied Whether invoice described the claim in sufficient detail to enable consideration as to whether it should be paid, partly paid or disputed Whether Tribunal empowered to vary a determination Whether respondent entitled to adduce further evidence |
Legislation: | Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 6(a), s 16, s 25, s 26, s 26(1), s 31, s 32(3)(a), s 46, s 46(1), s 46(2), Pt 3, Sch 1 Div 4 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27, s 29, s 29(3) |
Case References: | Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd -v- SC Projects Australia Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 60 GRC Group Pty Ltd and Kestell [2015] WASAT 11 Marine & Civil Pty Ltd and WQUBE Port of Dampier Pty Ltd [2014] WASAT 167 Match Projects Pty Ltd and Arccon (WA) Pty Ltd [2009] WASAT 134 MRCN Pty Ltd t/as Westforce Constructions and ABB Australia Pty Ltd [2014] WASAT 59 Perrinepod Pty Ltd and Georgiou Building Pty Ltd [2010] WASAT 136 Perrinepod Pty Ltd v- Georgiou Building Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 217 Searle and Kelso [2009] WASAT 255 Silent Vector Pty Ltd T/As Sizer Builders and Squarcini [2008] WASAT 39 Tormaz Pty Ltd and High Rise Painting Contractors Pty Ltd [2012] WASAT 166 |
Orders | On the application heard on 28 April 2015 before Member Karen Whitney, it is on 6 July 2015 ordered that:,1. The adjudicator's decision to dismiss aspects of adjudication no 07 15 01 pursuant to s 32(2)(a) of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) is affirmed.,2. The application for review pursuant to s 46(1) of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) is dismissed. |
Summary | The applicant sought review under s 46(1) of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) of a decision by the adjudicator dismissing part of an application for adjudication pursuant to s 31(2)(a)(ii) of the Act without making a determination of its merits. ,The applicant maintained that the relevant part of the application concerned a payment claim within the meaning of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 and that the adjudicator erred in finding that the applicant was not obligated to the respondents under the contracts with respect to the part of the claim in question. The applicant also contended that the invoice the subject of the claim was issued pursuant to a written provision about how a… |
Continue reading MODULAR FORMS PTY LTD and CECICH
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- MODULAR FORMS PTY LTD and CECICH [2015] WASAT 76
- Case
- [2015] WASAT 76
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Modular Forms Pty Ltd and Cecich engaged in a legal dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA). The core of the disagreement revolved around the adjudicator's authority to either dismiss or determine parts of an application for adjudication, as well as the obligations of the parties under the contract. Additionally, the case explored whether specific provisions of Schedule 1 Division 4 should be implied into the contract, and whether the invoice submitted by Modular Forms was sufficiently detailed to warrant payment, partial payment, or dispute.
The primary legal issues that the court had to address included whether the adjudicator was empowered to dismiss only part of the application for adjudication and determine the rest, and whether this constituted an express dismissal of the application. Furthermore, the court examined the extent of the parties' obligations under the contract, specifically whether certain provisions of Schedule 1 Division 4 should be implied into the contract. The court also considered whether the invoice provided by Modular Forms described the claim with sufficient detail to enable the respondent to determine whether it should be paid, partly paid, or disputed. Lastly, the court deliberated on whether the Tribunal had the authority to vary a determination and whether the respondent was entitled to adduce further evidence.
The court concluded that the adjudicator did not dismiss the application for adjudication but rather determined only part of it. The court held that the adjudicator did not have the authority to dismiss part of the application and determine the rest. In relation to the implied provisions of Schedule 1 Division 4, the court found that these provisions were not to be implied into the contract. The court determined that the invoice submitted by Modular Forms was not detailed enough to warrant payment, partial payment, or dispute. Additionally, the court ruled that the Tribunal did not have the power to vary a determination and that the respondent was not entitled to adduce further evidence.
The final orders of the court were that the application was dismissed. The court's decision provided clarity on the powers of an adjudicator, the obligations of the parties under the contract, and the scope of the tribunal's authority in varying determinations and allowing further evidence.
The primary legal issues that the court had to address included whether the adjudicator was empowered to dismiss only part of the application for adjudication and determine the rest, and whether this constituted an express dismissal of the application. Furthermore, the court examined the extent of the parties' obligations under the contract, specifically whether certain provisions of Schedule 1 Division 4 should be implied into the contract. The court also considered whether the invoice provided by Modular Forms described the claim with sufficient detail to enable the respondent to determine whether it should be paid, partly paid, or disputed. Lastly, the court deliberated on whether the Tribunal had the authority to vary a determination and whether the respondent was entitled to adduce further evidence.
The court concluded that the adjudicator did not dismiss the application for adjudication but rather determined only part of it. The court held that the adjudicator did not have the authority to dismiss part of the application and determine the rest. In relation to the implied provisions of Schedule 1 Division 4, the court found that these provisions were not to be implied into the contract. The court determined that the invoice submitted by Modular Forms was not detailed enough to warrant payment, partial payment, or dispute. Additionally, the court ruled that the Tribunal did not have the power to vary a determination and that the respondent was not entitled to adduce further evidence.
The final orders of the court were that the application was dismissed. The court's decision provided clarity on the powers of an adjudicator, the obligations of the parties under the contract, and the scope of the tribunal's authority in varying determinations and allowing further evidence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.