Creative Building Services Pty Ltd v TIO Air Conditioning Pty Ltd

[2016] ACTSC 367

Supreme Court of the ACT13 December 2016

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Jurisdictional error
4. › Adjudication decision under security of payment legislation
5. › Whether adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction by awarding amount greater than claimed amount
6. › Whether claimed amount is a jurisdictional fact
7. › Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009 (ACT), ss 15, 16, 17, 19, 24
1. Building and Construction
2. › Security of payment
3. › Payment claims
4. › Construction of payment claim
5. › Determination of claimed amount
6. › Whether payment claim to be interpreted objectively as commercial document
7. › Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009 (ACT), s 15(2)(b)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Extension of time
3. › Special circumstances
4. › Applicant unaware of decision within limitation period
5. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 3557

Quick Take

Under the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009 (ACT), the claimed amount stated in a payment claim defines the upper limit of the amount an adjudicator may award, and the Court may determine the claimed amount for itself when reviewing for jurisdictional error. An adjudication decision that awards more than the claimed amount is void for jurisdictional error and cannot be severed to preserve the valid portion. Payment claims under the SOP Act are to be construed objectively, as commercial documents, considered as a whole and in their commercial context.