St Hilliers Property Pty Limited v ACT Projects Pty Ltd and Simon Wilson

The case of St Hilliers Property Pty Limited versus ACT Projects Pty Ltd and Simon Wilson came before the court to address disputes arising from a construction contract. St Hilliers, the head contractor, sought to recover progress payments that had been disputed by ACT Projects and Simon Wilson, subcontractors on the project. The dispute centred on the timeliness of payment claims, the interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009 (ACT), and the validity of an adjudicator's decision. The court had to determine whether a payment claim was served too late, if a 'reference date' was a necessary prerequisite for its service, and whether the adjudicator had improperly delegated the preparation of the adjudication decision.

The court examined whether the payment claim was served outside the statutory time frame and whether the absence of a 'reference date' at the time of service rendered the claim invalid. Additionally, it considered if the adjudicator had delegated the preparation of his adjudication decision, potentially undermining the validity of the decision. The court also assessed whether the adjudicator's finding of waiver constituted an error of law, which would affect the outcome of the adjudication.

The court found that the payment claim was not served too late, as the absence of a 'reference date' did not preclude its validity. Furthermore, it concluded that the adjudicator had not improperly delegated the preparation of the adjudication decision. Regarding the adjudicator's finding of waiver, the court determined that it was not an error of law. Consequently, the adjudicator's decision was upheld.

The court made several orders, including dismissing the application for leave to appeal the adjudicator's decision, and affirming the adjudicator's findings regarding the payment claim and waiver. The orders specified the timelines and conditions under which the progress payments were to be made, and provided for costs associated with the proceedings.