Peekhrst P/L v Wallace

Peekhrst P/L, the applicant, brought an application for judicial review against Wallace, the respondent, challenging the decision made by an adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004. The applicant sought to have the decision reviewed on several grounds, including the propriety of the adjudicator's appointment, the service of the adjudication application, and whether the adjudicator was biased. The applicant also sought to set aside a statutory demand for debts based on a judgment obtained under the Act.

The court had to decide whether the adjudicator's appointment was properly accepted, if the adjudication application was served, and whether the adjudicator satisfied himself that there was service of the adjudication application. The court also had to determine if the adjudicator was biased and whether the statutory demand should be set aside. The court examined the timeliness of the applicant's submissions and whether the applicant had delayed in submitting a list of defects. The court was required to consider whether, in all circumstances, it should exercise its discretion to set aside the statutory demand.

The court found that the adjudicator's appointment was properly accepted, the adjudication application was served, and the adjudicator was satisfied that there was service of the adjudication application. The court also found that there was no evidence of bias on the part of the adjudicator. In relation to the statutory demand, the court held that the applicant had delayed in submitting a list of defects, and the applicant had not applied to set aside the judgment or instituted proceedings under the relevant sections of the Act. The court determined that in all circumstances, it was not appropriate to exercise its discretion to set aside the statutory demand.

The court dismissed the applications, upholding the adjudicator's decision and the statutory demand for debts.