Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd v Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd

Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd (Romaldi) sought permission to appeal against orders made by a Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which had allowed an appeal against an interlocutory injunction previously granted by a District Court Judge. The dispute originated from a subcontract between Romaldi and Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd (Interiors), concerning payment for work performed. Interiors had applied for and obtained an adjudication certificate under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA) for a significant sum, which then became payable as a judgment debt. Romaldi had sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Interiors from enforcing this judgment pending the determination of its own breach of contract claim against Interiors.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court of South Australia concerned the criteria and onus of proof applicable to an application for a stay of execution of a judgment arising from an adjudication under the Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the threshold for demonstrating a risk of insolvency was a high likelihood or a real risk of inability to repay, and how the onus of proof shifted between the applicant for the stay and the respondent. This was complicated by the fact that a Magistrate had refused to grant a stay on the basis that the substantive issues had already been decided adversely to Romaldi by a Judge of the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that it had not previously determined the criteria for a stay of execution in the context of an adjudication judgment under the Act. It identified that a question of general principle and public importance arose regarding these criteria and the onus of proof. The Court considered that given the Magistrate's decision to refuse a stay based on the prior judicial determination, it was appropriate to grant Romaldi permission to appeal.

Permission to appeal was granted by the Court.