Waco Kwikform Ltd v Complete Access Scaffolding (NSW) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] NSWSC 1702
•30 November 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Waco Kwikform Ltd v Complete Access Scaffolding (NSW) Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1702
[2020] NSWSC 1702
30 November 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved a dispute between Waco Kwikform Ltd and Complete Access Scaffolding (NSW) Pty Ltd. The central issue was whether an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1989 should be quashed due to the parties' agreement regarding the reference date for a progress claim. Specifically, the court examined whether clause 4.1 of the construction contract was one by or in accordance with which the date for a progress claim was determined, and whether it expressly nominated the date by which the claim could be made. Additionally, the court considered whether section 8(2)(a) of the Act was engaged.
The court held that clause 4.1 of the construction contract did not expressly nominate the date by which the claim could be made. Instead, it set out a method for determining the date for a progress claim. Given that the method was not followed, the reference date was determined under the Act. The court further found that the determination of the reference date under the Act did not invalidate the adjudication determination as it did not expressly nominate the date by which the claim could be made. Therefore, the application to quash the determination was dismissed.
The court's reasoning and conclusion were based on a detailed analysis of the construction contract and the relevant provisions of the Act. The court found that the parties' agreement did not expressly nominate the date by which the claim could be made, and the method for determining the reference date was not followed. The court also noted that the adjudication determination was valid, as the Act did not require the reference date to be expressly nominated in the contract. Consequently, the application to quash the determination was dismissed, and the adjudication determination remained in effect.
The court held that clause 4.1 of the construction contract did not expressly nominate the date by which the claim could be made. Instead, it set out a method for determining the date for a progress claim. Given that the method was not followed, the reference date was determined under the Act. The court further found that the determination of the reference date under the Act did not invalidate the adjudication determination as it did not expressly nominate the date by which the claim could be made. Therefore, the application to quash the determination was dismissed.
The court's reasoning and conclusion were based on a detailed analysis of the construction contract and the relevant provisions of the Act. The court found that the parties' agreement did not expressly nominate the date by which the claim could be made, and the method for determining the reference date was not followed. The court also noted that the adjudication determination was valid, as the Act did not require the reference date to be expressly nominated in the contract. Consequently, the application to quash the determination was dismissed, and the adjudication determination remained in effect.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Construction Law
Legal Concepts
-
Adjudication
-
Breach of Contract
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Greenwood Futures v DSD Builders
[2018] NSWSC 1407
Patrick Stevedores Operations No. 2 Pty Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd
[2014] NSWSC 1413
Quasar Constructions v Demtech Pty Ltd
[2004] NSWSC 116