O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd

(2008) 36 WAR 479; [2008] WASC 58

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Building and Construction
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Adjudication of payment disputes
4. › Enforcement of adjudicator's determination
5. › Application for leave to enforce as judgment of court
6. › Principles governing exercise of discretion to grant leave
7. › Whether respondent bears onus of establishing grounds for refusal
8. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 43(2)
1. Building and Construction
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Adjudication of payment disputes
4. › Enforcement of adjudicator's determination
5. › Whether correctness of adjudicator's determination may be reviewed on application for leave to enforce
6. › Whether alleged jurisdictional error is ground for refusal
7. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), ss 43, 46
1. Building and Construction
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Adjudication of payment disputes
4. › Enforcement of adjudicator's determination
5. › Whether existence of imminent counter-adjudication is ground for refusal of leave
6. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), ss 37, 38, 43

Quick Take

On an application under s 43(2) of the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), the onus is on the respondent to establish grounds for refusal of leave; the statutory scheme creates a predisposition in favour of granting leave. The correctness of the adjudicator's determination cannot be reviewed on such an application. The existence of an imminent counter-adjudication is not a sufficient ground for refusal; the appropriate mechanism for protecting a respondent's interests is a stay or suspension order after leave is granted.