RE SCOTT JOHNSON; EX PARTE DECMIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2014] WASC 348

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 348
Case No:	CIV:2079/2014	Heard:	18 SEPTEMBER 2014
Coram:	BEECH J	Delivered:	30/09/14
No of pages:	20	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for writ of certiorari dismissed Leave granted to enforce the adjudication
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DECMIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD SCOTT JOHNSON INFRA TECH PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Administrative law Prerogative writs Whether adjudication under Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) involved jurisdictional error Jurisdictional facts Turns on own facts Building and construction Security of payments legislation Time at which payment dispute arose Whether jurisdictional error by the adjudicator
Legislation:	Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 26, s 31(2)(a)
Case References:	Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212 Blackadder Scaffolding Services (Aust) Pty Ltd v Mirvac Homes (WA) Pty Ltd [2009] WASAT 133 Cape Range Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Austral Construction Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 304 Kirk v Industrial Court of NSW [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531 Perrinepod Pty Ltd v Georgiou Building Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 217; (2011) 43 WAR 319 Re David Scott Ellis Ex parte Triple M Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WASC 161 Red Ink Homes Pty Ltd v Court [2014] WASC 52 South Coast Scaffolding and Rigging v Hire Access Pty Ltd [2012] WASAT 5 WQUBE Port of Dampier v Philip Loots of Kahlia Nominees Ltd [2014] WASC 331

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RE SCOTT JOHNSON; EX PARTE DECMIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2014] WASC 348 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 18 SEPTEMBER 2014 DELIVERED : 30 SEPTEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 2079 of 2014 MATTER : An application for a writ of Certiorari against SCOTT JOHNSON EX PARTE

DECMIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

SCOTT JOHNSON

First Respondent

INFRA TECH PTY LTD

Other Party

FILE NO/S : CIV 2223 of 2014 MATTER : An application under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)

BETWEEN : INFRA TECH PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

DECMIL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Administrative law - Prerogative writs - Whether adjudication under Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) involved jurisdictional error - Jurisdictional facts - Turns on own facts

Building and construction - Security of payments legislation - Time at which payment dispute arose - Whether jurisdictional error by the adjudicator

Legislation:

Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 26, s 31(2)(a)

Result:

Application for writ of certiorari dismissed

Leave granted to enforce the adjudication

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2079 of 2014

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D S Ellis

First Respondent : No appearance

Other Party : Ms G B A Visscher

Solicitors:

Applicant : Tottle Partners

First Respondent : No appearance

Other Party : Sonia Edwards Legal

CIV 2223 of 2014

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms G B A Visscher

Defendant : Mr D S Ellis

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Sonia Edwards Legal

Defendant : Tottle Partners

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Alliance…

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.

Continue reading Re Scott Johnson;

Details

AGLC: Re Scott Johnson; [2014] WASC 348
Case: [2014] WASC 348
Decision Date: 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Scott Johnson, sought a writ of certiorari to quash an adjudicator's decision under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA). The dispute arose from a payment claim in a construction contract, where Johnson claimed that the adjudicator had made a jurisdictional error in determining the time at which a payment dispute arose. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the adjudicator had made a jurisdictional error in deciding the timing of the payment dispute, and whether this error was such that it rendered the adjudicator's decision void. This involved examining the statutory framework under which the adjudicator operated, and whether the adjudicator had considered all jurisdictional facts necessary to make a valid decision. The court also needed to consider the extent to which the adjudicator's decision turned on its own facts.

The court held that the adjudicator had not made a jurisdictional error in determining the time at which the payment dispute arose. The court found that the adjudicator had considered all relevant jurisdictional facts and had made a decision that was not Wednesbury unreasonable. The court also held that the adjudicator's decision did not turn on its own facts, as it was based on the evidence and submissions provided by the parties. The court further held that the adjudicator had the necessary jurisdiction to make the decision, and that the decision was therefore valid.

The application for a writ of certiorari was dismissed, but leave was granted to enforce the adjudication. This means that the adjudicator's decision stands, and the respondent is required to make the payment claimed by the applicant. The applicant may still seek to challenge the merits of the adjudicator's decision in a separate proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for writ of certiorari dismissed

Leave granted to enforce the adjudication

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.