An adjudicator under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) is to be treated as analogous to an inferior court for the purposes of the Craig v South Australia jurisdictional error dichotomy, meaning a narrower range of errors will constitute jurisdictional error. However, an adjudicator who finds a binding oral contract exists but then concludes it contains no express terms, or who treats agreed contractual terms as optional because they are inconvenient to one party, commits jurisdictional error by misconceiving the nature of the adjudicator's function. Professional services related to anticipated future construction work can satisfy the definition of 'construction contract' even where no construction work has commenced at a site.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.