Samsung C&T Corporation v Duro Felguera Australia Pty Ltd

[2018] WASCA 27

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Jurisdictional error
4. › Determination by adjudicator under statute
5. › Whether adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction
6. › Whether error in characterisation of work was error within or beyond jurisdiction
7. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), ss 4, 6, 25, 26, 31
1. Administrative Law
2. › Jurisdictional facts
3. › Narrow and broad jurisdictional facts
4. › Whether existence of 'payment dispute' was jurisdictional fact conditioning adjudicator's power
5. › Whether correct characterisation of work as 'construction work' was condition of jurisdiction
1. Building and Construction Law
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)
4. › Adjudication of payment disputes
5. › Scope of adjudicator's jurisdiction
6. › Whether adjudicator could determine dispute including claims for excluded mining work
7. › Whether 'payment claim' could include claims for work not within definition of 'construction work'
8. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), ss 3, 4, 6, 25, 31
1. Statutes
2. › Construction
3. › Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)
4. › Definition of 'construction work'
5. › Definition of 'payment claim'
6. › Definition of 'obligations'
7. › Relationship between definitions
8. › Whether contract containing both construction work and excluded work was 'construction contract'

Quick Take

Under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), a contract that includes both 'construction work' and excluded work (such as mining work) is a 'construction contract' and the duty to dismiss under s 31(2)(a)(i) does not arise. However, an adjudicator's jurisdiction under s 31(2)(b) is limited to determining 'payment disputes' as defined, and an adjudicator who erroneously determines a claim for payment for work that is not 'construction work' commits jurisdictional error. Such error does not void the entire determination where the affected portion is severable under common law principles. The question of whether there is a de minimis threshold for a contract to qualify as a 'construction contract' was left open.