Saville v Hallmarc Construction Pty Ltd

In the case of Saville v Hallmarc Construction Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Saville, sought judicial review of an adjudication determination made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002. The adjudication determined a dispute between Saville and Hallmarc Construction Pty Ltd regarding the scope of works under their building contract. The primary issue for the court was whether the adjudication determination was reviewable for jurisdictional error and if the determination was invalid due to an incorrect reference date.

The court addressed the jurisdictional error by examining whether the adjudicator fixed the wrong reference date, a critical fact necessary for the determination of the dispute. The court found that the reference date was a jurisdictional fact and that the adjudicator had indeed fixed the wrong reference date. This error rendered the determination invalid as it did not adhere to the statutory requirements. The court applied principles from Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd and Sugar Australia Pty Ltd v Southern Ocean Pty Ltd, which established that judicial review of such matters is not limited to straightforward calculation of time or arbitrary decisions, but also includes errors concerning jurisdictional facts.

Furthermore, the court considered whether the payment claim was served out of time. The court concluded that the adjudication determination was invalid as it was based on an incorrect reference date, which was a matter of jurisdictional fact. Consequently, the court found that the adjudication determination was not valid and could be set aside on the grounds of jurisdictional error.

The court did not entertain an application to adduce further evidence as it was unclear whether this would produce a different result, consistent with the principles outlined in Refaat v Barry and Clark v Stingel.