Cockram Construction Ltd v Fulton Hogan Construction Pty Ltd

(2018) 359 ALR 350; [2018] NSWCA 107

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Building and Construction
2. › Security of payment
3. › Adjudication of payment claims
4. › Review of adjudicator's determination
5. › Content of reasons required by determination
6. › Whether determination failed to include reasons
7. › Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), s 22(3)(b)
1. Building and Construction
2. › Security of payment
3. › Adjudication of payment claims
4. › Adjudicator's statutory function
5. › Obligation to consider provisions of construction contract
6. › Whether adjudicator departed from statutory function by refusing to apply contractual condition precedent
7. › Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), s 22(2)(b)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Jurisdictional error
4. › Adjudicator under security of payment legislation
5. › Distinction between error of law within jurisdiction and departure from statutory function
6. › Whether error in construction of contract constitutes jurisdictional error

Quick Take

An adjudicator's conclusion that a contractual condition precedent is not legitimate or workable, even if legally erroneous, constitutes consideration of the contract under s 22(2)(b) of the SOP Act and does not amount to a departure from the statutory function or jurisdictional error.