Administrative Law. Application to set aside determination under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999.Whether the decision was a nulity and whether there was a denial of natural justice resulting from the adjudicator's determination of the question of when a payment claim was served. Held not. Consideration of terms of Electronic Transactions Act 2000. Trade and Commerce. Whether statements in adjudication application were misleading and deceptive. Held not and no effective causal link.
PARTIES:
Reed Constructions Pty Limited v Eire Contractors Pty Limited
FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 55004/09
COUNSEL:
Mr B DeBuse for plaintiff Mr K Pierce & S Goldstein for defendant
SOLICITORS:
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers Budd & Piper for defendant
- 1 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION
2 The dispute arises out of a construction contract dated 10 November 2006 between the plaintiff and the defendant for civil works associated with a rising main from Richmond Hill Road to Nightcap Water Treatment Plant.
3 The contract included the terms and conditions of GC21.
4 Clause 30 of GC21 specified that notices to the contractor must be sent in a manner specified in items 4 to 11 of the subcontract information. Items 5 and 6 of the subcontract information provided that notices to the contractor must go to the contractor’s authorised person, this person was listed as Tom Burns. Details were provided for delivery by hand, by registered post, by facsimile or by email, with the relevant email address being tburns@reedgroup.com.au.
5 The defendant made a payment claim in the amount of $610,179.32 (including GST) pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security for Payment Act 1999. The adjudicator made a determination in favour of the defendant for $555,602.82.
6 The plaintiff submits that the determination by the adjudicator should be set aside on three grounds:
1. The adjudication is void. 2. There was misleading and deceptive conduct in obtaining the adjudication. 3. A breach of natural justice occurred in the course of the adjudication.
History of the payment claim
7 This is conveniently set out in the submissions from the parties and I will incorporate them in this judgment with some amendments.
8 Kylie Barr (kylie@eirecontractors.com) sent the payment claim as an attachment to an email. That email was addressed to Martin Diver (mdiver@reedgroup.com.au) and it was sent at 3.06pm on 6 November 2008. The email was marked as being of high importance, its subject being ‘Revised Eire Claim for Additional Works completed – Lismore Pipeline.’ The email was carbon copied to Tom Burns, Ray McIntyre and Tom Kelliher. Tom Burns…
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.
Reed Constructions Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against Eire Contractors Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centered around an adjudication process under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999, which concerned the timing of a payment claim served by Reed. The core legal issues revolved around whether the adjudicator's determination was a nullity due to procedural errors and whether there was a denial of natural justice resulting from the adjudicator's handling of the payment claim timing. Additionally, the case examined whether certain statements in the adjudication application were misleading and deceptive under the Trade and Commerce provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The court first considered whether the adjudicator's determination was a nullity and whether there was a denial of natural justice. It found that the adjudicator had not acted outside their jurisdiction, and the process followed was procedurally fair. The court also assessed the implications of the Electronic Transactions Act 2000, concluding that the adjudicator's handling of the electronic communication did not result in a nullity. The court further addressed whether the statements in the adjudication application were misleading and deceptive, determining that there was no misleading or deceptive conduct and no causal link between the statements and any harm suffered by Eire Contractors.
The Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the adjudicator's determination was not a nullity and there was no denial of natural justice. Additionally, the misleading and deceptive conduct claim was dismissed, as the statements in question were not misleading or deceptive, and no causal link to harm was established. The court's decision upheld the validity of the adjudicator's determination and dismissed Reed Constructions' claims against Eire Contractors.