The Court held that a supporting statement under s 13(7) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) does not require an attachment where only one subcontractor is identified in the body of the statement, and the absence of an attachment implies no amounts are in dispute. On the standard of review of adjudicators' determinations, the Court cautioned against mechanically applying the SSC Plenty Road checklist, emphasising that adjudicators' reasons must be read fairly in context and in light of the compressed timeframes under which they operate, and that overzealous scrutiny risks impermissible merits review. On the question of staying enforcement, the Court confirmed that the mere risk of a builder's insolvency is the very risk the Security of Payment Act allocates to the owner, and something more — such as deliberate delay tactics or restructuring of affairs to defeat claims — must be shown to justify a stay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.