The Court held there was no denial of procedural fairness where an adjudicator rejected a head contractor's liquidated damages set-off claim on the basis that the head contractor, acting reasonably, should have granted an extension of time under a discretionary contractual power (cl 41.9), because the head contractor had itself put in issue whether the subcontractor was entitled to any extension of time. The adjudicator's conclusion that it was unreasonable not to grant additional time was a response to the arguments as made, not a new basis neither party had raised. The Court also held that the adjudicator's passing reference to a possible alternative unliquidated damages claim did not give rise to a procedural fairness obligation, as no such claim had been raised in the payment schedule and could not be considered under ss 14(3) and 20(2B) of the Act.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.