Quickway Constructions Pty Ltd v Electrical Energy Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2017] NSWSC 1303

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Quickway Constructions Pty Ltd v Electrical Energy Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1303
Hearing dates: On the papers (last submission 21 September 2017)
Date of orders: 28 September 2017
Decision date: 28 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Parker J
Decision:
Determination made in breach of rules of natural justice quashed, and other consequential orders.

Catchwords: Judgments and Orders – construction contracts – challenge to adjudication determination – denial of natural justice – declaration that determination is void – order quashing determination – appropriate relief
Cases Cited: Amasya Enterprises Pty Ltd v Asta Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] VSC 500
Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004) 61 NSWLR 421; [2004] NSWCA 394
Cardinal Project Services Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1367
Cardinal Project Services Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (2011) 81 NSWLR 716; [2011] NSWCA 399
Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 393; [2010] NSWCA 190
Cranbrook School v JA Bradshaw Civil Contracting [2013] NSWSC 430
Fifty Property Investments Pty Ltd v O’Mara [2006] NSWSC 428
Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd v Total Lifestyle Windows Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 194
Mt Lewis Estate Pty Ltd v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1121
Texts Cited: JD Heydon, MJ Leeming, and PG Turner, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrines and Remedies (5th ed, 2015, LexisNexis Butterworths)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Quickway Constructions Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Electrical Energy Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Paul J Hick (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
HK Insall SC (Plaintiff)
FP Hicks/DJ Byrne (First Defendant)
Solicitors:
Hugh & Associates (Plaintiff)
Dentons Australia (First Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/237797
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The parties have now submitted orders to give effect to the conclusions which I reached in my substantive judgment in this matter: Quickway Constructions Pty Ltd v Electrical Energy Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1140. The orders are agreed by the parties except on one point.
The issue concerns the appropriate orders to be made to give effect to my conclusion that the Leichhardt adjudication determination involved a denial of natural justice. It is common ground between the parties that the result of this decision is that the determination is (to use a neutral term) invalid.
The plaintiff has submitted short minutes of order which provide for the Court both to declare the adjudication determination to be “void” and to make an order that it be quashed. The first defendant contends that the only order the Court should make is to quash the determination. I was provided with some references to authority by the parties. I have supplemented those references to authority with further research of my own.
In Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004) 61 NSWLR 421, the Court of Appeal considered a case where a challenge was made to an adjudication determination on a number of grounds, including alleged denial of natural justice. Hodgson JA, on behalf of the Court,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Quickway Constructions Pty Ltd v Electrical Energy Pty Ltd (... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 1303
Decision Date: 28 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the dispute are Quickway Constructions Pty Ltd and Electrical Energy Pty Ltd. The nature of the dispute pertains to a challenge against an adjudication determination made in relation to a construction contract. The court involved is the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary issue the court was required to decide was whether the adjudication determination was void due to a denial of natural justice, specifically procedural fairness. The court had to consider whether the party challenging the determination had a legitimate expectation of procedural fairness and if this expectation was breached.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in the context of adjudication proceedings. It examined the nature of the adjudication process, the rights and obligations of the parties, and whether the process followed was fair and just. The court held that the party challenging the determination had a legitimate expectation of procedural fairness, which was breached. Consequently, the determination was found to be void, and the court quashed the determination. The court concluded that the appropriate relief was to declare the determination void and quash it, as it had been made in breach of natural justice.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the adjudication determination was void and an order quashing the determination. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in adjudication proceedings and the consequences of failing to adhere to these principles. The court's ruling reinforces the need for parties to ensure that adjudication processes are conducted in a manner that upholds the principles of natural justice.

Orders