The Court held that where an adjudicator expressly states that a respondent provided no reasons for withholding payment when the payment schedule and adjudication response in fact contained detailed quantum objections, the compelling inference is that the adjudicator failed to consider those objections, constituting jurisdictional error under s 22(2) of SOPA — this is distinguishable from a bona fide but incorrect interpretation of the payment schedule. The Court also held that an uncontestable arithmetical error in an adjudication determination (as distinct from a contestable error of legal logic) constitutes jurisdictional error on the basis of legal unreasonableness, as it cannot have been intended that an award based on adding 2 and 2 and getting 5 would be binding even for the interim purposes of the Act. On costs, the Court applied a claim-by-claim approach but held that general costs of the proceedings should follow the overall successful party (here the plaintiff who achieved a $46 million reduction), with the unsuccessful party paying only costs solely referable to its failed challenges.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.