Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd v Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd (No 2)

This matter concerned appeals by Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd against decisions of a Magistrate and a Judge of the District Court. The dispute arose from a subcontract between Romaldi and Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd for the supply and installation of linings for a college project. Linings submitted progress claims, which Romaldi disputed, alleging breaches of the subcontract by Linings. Romaldi subsequently took the work out of Linings' hands and engaged others to complete it. Linings then made a payment claim under the *Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009* (SA) (the Act), which proceeded to adjudication. The adjudicator determined that Linings was entitled to $48,194 plus interest and adjudication fees. Romaldi commenced proceedings in the District Court seeking damages for breach of contract.

The appeals raised three principal issues for determination by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Firstly, whether grounds were established for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Linings from obtaining an adjudication certificate. Secondly, whether grounds were established for a stay of execution of the judgment founded on the adjudication certificate. Thirdly, whether the Judge on appeal erred in concluding that the proper exercise of discretion at first instance would have been to deny a stay of execution.

The Court considered the principles governing interlocutory injunctions and stays of execution in the context of the Act. It was held that the Magistrate had erred in their approach to the application for a stay of execution. However, the Full Court found that, notwithstanding this error, the appeal against the Magistrate's orders should be dismissed. Similarly, the appeal against the Judge's decision was dismissed.

The Full Court dismissed both appeals.