Samsung C&T Corporation v Duro Felguera Australia Pty Ltd

Samsung C&T Corporation appealed against a decision of the trial judge who dismissed the company’s applications for judicial review of determinations made by adjudicators under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA). Duro Felguera Australia Pty Ltd cross-appealed the trial judge’s refusal to grant it leave to enforce the determinations. The court was required to determine whether the adjudicators had jurisdiction to consider and determine disputes that included claims for payment for 'construction work' and work excluded from the definition of 'construction work'. The court also needed to decide whether the adjudicators had jurisdiction to erroneously determine whether work for which payment was sought was 'construction work'.

The court found that the adjudicators had jurisdiction to determine disputes that included claims for payment for 'construction work' and work excluded from the definition of 'construction work'. The court held that the adjudicators had jurisdiction to erroneously determine whether work for which payment was sought was 'construction work'. The court found that the errors made by the adjudicators did not affect the validity of the determinations. The court held that the trial judge's conclusion that the First and Fifth Determinations were valid notwithstanding the errors which he had found was correct. The court also held that the trial judge's conclusion that the Second Determination was invalid on other grounds was correct.

The court dismissed Samsung's appeal and held that the trial judge's decision to refuse leave to enforce the determinations was correct. The court found that Duro was not entitled to enforce the determinations because the adjudicators had jurisdiction to determine the disputes, and the errors made by the adjudicators did not affect the validity of the determinations. The court dismissed Duro's cross-appeal.