The Court held that an adjudicator commits jurisdictional error by refusing to consider material filed after the payment schedule where that material supports reasons already indicated in the schedule, as s 20(2B) of the Security of Payment Act prohibits only new reasons for withholding payment, not new documentation supporting existing reasons. The Court further held that an adjudicator who resolves conflicting expert evidence by making a wholesale credibility choice between experts — rather than undertaking an independent assessment of the merits based on all available material — fails to perform the statutory task required under the Act and commits a separate jurisdictional error. The adjudication determination was quashed and the District Court judgment set aside, with repayment of garnished funds ordered.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.