The Court held that ss 8 and 13 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) do not impose, as a condition for the validity of a payment claim, a requirement that the claimant assert an entitlement to a progress payment arising under the construction contract concerned; it is sufficient that the claimant is a person referred to in s 8(1) who claims to be entitled to a progress payment. The Court confirmed, applying EnerMech and JG King, that a final payment claim for the return of cash proceeds of encashed security under a construction contract is a valid payment claim under the Act, and that the adjudicator's interpretation of the payment claim, the construction contract and any related deed of settlement — including whether the claim was based on the contract or the deed — is a matter within jurisdiction, with any error being non-jurisdictional. The Court also held that alleged inconsistencies in an adjudicator's reasoning as to the role of a deed of settlement (treating it as irrelevant, evidentiary and operative in different respects) did not establish a constructive failure to consider mandatory material under s 22(2)(c), applying Ceerose principles.
The full text is available to signed-in members.