Tagara Builders P/L v AP & L Services P/L

Tagara Builders P/L and AP & L Services P/L were involved in a contractual dispute over payment claims for work carried out by AP & L Services under a subcontract. The dispute centred on the enforceability of the subcontract and the jurisdiction of an adjudicator appointed under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (SA). AP & L Services was found to be unlicensed, which rendered the subcontract unenforceable under the Contractors Act 2008 (SA). This raised questions about the jurisdiction of the adjudicator appointed to adjudicate on the payment claims and the validity of the adjudicator's determination.

The primary legal issues were whether the jurisdiction of the adjudicator depended on the existence of a valid contract and whether the Contractors Act disentitled AP & L Services from receiving payment. The court had to determine if the adjudicator had the authority to make a determination when the underlying contract was unenforceable due to AP & L Services' lack of a contractor's licence. The court also needed to consider whether the statutory provisions allowed for an adjudicator to make a determination in the absence of an enforceable contract.

The court ruled that AP & L Services was disentitled from recovering the contract price under section 6(2) of the Contractors Act, as it was unlicensed. This disentitlement meant that AP & L Services was not entitled to payment under the Act, rendering the subcontract unenforceable. Consequently, the adjudicator appointed by the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia had no jurisdiction to make an adjudication determination, and the determination made by the adjudicator was void. Additionally, the adjudicator appointed for the second adjudication did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the adjudication.

The court ordered that the determination made by Mr Covino was void and that Mr Fullerton had no jurisdiction to proceed with the second adjudication. Tagara Builders P/L was granted orders in the nature of certiorari and prohibition against the adjudication process.