The Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining enforcement of an adjudication determination under the SOP Act, but only on the usual condition that the adjudicated amount of approximately $6.1 million be paid into court or secured by unconditional bank guarantee, rejecting the plaintiff's proffered alternatives of a parent entity guarantee and mortgage over real property. The Court held that the usual practice of requiring payment into court does not depend on the validity of s 25(4) of the SOP Act but derives from the Act's general policy of maintaining cash flow to contractors and placing insolvency risk on principals, and that departure requires evidence establishing the applicant cannot reasonably pay — here, the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of the financial position of its ultimate trust owners and did not establish that payment would stultify the proceedings. The Court left unresolved the constitutional validity of s 25(4) and the substantive question of whether s 8(2)(b) invalidates an entire payment claim in a mixed-use development where only some works require HBCF insurance.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.