TQM v Dasein

The plaintiff, TQM, initiated proceedings against Dasein, an entity within the building and construction industry, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. TQM sought a determination that an adjudication decision made by an adjudicator was void. The dispute arose from differing accounts regarding the date on which the adjudication application was served and received, which influenced the timing of the adjudication. The plaintiff contended that the adjudicator violated principles of natural justice by considering information that had not been provided to the plaintiff. TQM further argued that the adjudicator failed to consider the entire case when evaluating the payment schedule, suggesting that this oversight warranted a discretionary denial of relief.

The court was tasked with determining whether the adjudication determination was void due to the alleged procedural irregularities and whether the adjudicator's consideration of undisclosed information constituted a breach of natural justice. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the adjudicator's failure to consider the full scope of TQM's case warranted a discretionary refusal of relief. The court also examined whether the adjudicator's assessment of the payment schedule inherently meant a review of the entire case, thereby potentially negating the claim of procedural unfairness.

The court found that the adjudication determination was not void, as the alleged procedural irregularities did not undermine the validity of the adjudicator's decision. The court held that the adjudicator did not breach natural justice by considering information withheld from the plaintiff, as the undisclosed material did not influence the outcome of the adjudication. The court further determined that the adjudicator's focus on the payment schedule did not preclude a comprehensive evaluation of TQM's case. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion not to set aside the adjudication determination, finding no basis to intervene on the grounds presented by TQM.

In light of the court's findings, TQM's application was dismissed. The court ordered that TQM bear the costs of the proceeding. This outcome underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in adjudication processes while affirming the court's cautious approach in exercising its discretionary powers to overturn adjudication determinations.