Tackelly No 8 Pty Ltd as trustee for Tackelly No 8 Trust v Reward Interiors Pty Ltd t/as Reward Group

Tackelly No 8 Pty Ltd as trustee for Tackelly No 8 Trust initiated proceedings against Reward Interiors Pty Ltd, trading as Reward Group, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute originated from a claim for payment under the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA), with the primary contention being whether Reward Interiors was entitled to payment for work performed and materials supplied. The case examined the procedural requirements of the legislation, specifically focusing on the adjudication process and the obligations of the parties involved.

The court was tasked with determining several key legal issues. These included whether the service requirement under the Act was fulfilled by providing a link within an email, the interpretation of the term "given" in the context of statutory compliance, and the proper form of relief to be granted in such adjudication proceedings. Additionally, the court had to consider the policy of the security of payment legislation, particularly the balance between ensuring timely payments and allowing for judicial review.

In its reasoning, the court highlighted the policy of the security of payment legislation, emphasising the importance of timely payments in the construction industry. It noted the differences and similarities between the Western Australian model and the East Coast model, underscoring the need for a balance between the expeditious resolution of disputes and the protection of parties' rights. The court ruled that the service requirement was not strictly met by providing a link within an email, and that the term "given" in the Act required strict compliance. Regarding the form of relief, the court determined that the adjudicator must determine review applications in accordance with the law and that a mandamus was not the appropriate remedy where other proceedings were already underway.

The final orders of the court were that the application for mandamus be dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant to the respondent. The court also clarified the procedural requirements under the Act, reaffirming the need for strict compliance with service provisions and the interpretation of statutory language.