O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd

[2009] WASC 19

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. › Payment disputes
4. › Adjudication under Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)
5. › Whether progress claim constitutes single payment claim or multiple payment claims
6. › Whether rejection of progress claim gives rise to single or multiple payment disputes
7. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), ss 3, 6, 26(1), 26(2)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Prerogative writs
3. › Certiorari
4. › Adjudication under Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)
5. › Whether adjudication determination sufficiently affects rights to be amenable to certiorari
6. › Whether privative clause excludes certiorari
7. › Construction of s 46(3)
8. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), ss 31(2)(a), 46
1. Administrative Law
2. › Privative clauses
3. › Construction of privative clause
4. › Right of review to State Administrative Tribunal
5. › Whether s 46(1) extends to decisions not to dismiss adjudication application
6. › Whether availability of statutory review excludes prerogative relief
7. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 46(1), (3)

Quick Take

A progress claim by a contractor under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) generally constitutes a single 'payment claim' giving rise to a single 'payment dispute' when rejected, rather than multiple separate disputes for each component subclaim. An applicant cannot add additional component subclaims after the 28-day period, but this is by force of s 26(2)(c), not because each subclaim is a separate payment claim under s 26(1). A respondent who unsuccessfully invites dismissal under s 31(2)(a) has a right of review to the SAT under s 46(1), and s 46(3) excludes certiorari in respect of errors regarding compliance with s 26.