Reward Interiors Pty Ltd t/as Reward Group v Stream Line Joinery Pty Ltd; Stream Line Joinery Pty Ltd v Reward Interiors Pty Ltd t/as Reward Group [2026] NSWSC 940 — Adjudication — Barrister AI
Reward Interiors Pty Ltd t/as Reward Group v Stream Line Joinery Pty Ltd; Stream Line Joinery Pty Ltd v Reward Interiors Pty Ltd t/as Reward Group
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION — Adjudication — Judicial review — Where defendant brought payment claim against plaintiff under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (Act) — Where adjudicator made determinations on payment claim — Where adjudicator decided that payment claim was served within time per s 13(4)(b) of the Act — Whether adjudicator fell into jurisdictional error in his application of s 13(4)(b) — Whether error was material — Whether order in the nature of mandamus is an appropriate form of relief
Quick Take
1An adjudicator's misapprehension of the character of a party's submission on s 13(4)(b) of the SoP Act does not necessarily constitute jurisdictional error where the adjudicator's stated test, though incomplete, is not wrong so far as it goes and the factual findings support the conclusion reached.
2Section 13(4) of the SoP Act incorporates a threshold of materiality in the event of misapplication: even where an adjudicator asks the wrong question under s 13(4)(b), the error is not jurisdictional if, on the adjudicator's factual findings, the outcome would inevitably have been the same had the correct test been applied (applying LPDT v Minister for Immigration).
3The court indicated in obiter that had jurisdictional error been established, an order in the nature of mandamus remitting the matter to the adjudicator would have been appropriate, doubting that civil litigation on the contract constitutes an adequate alternative remedy to the interim payment entitlement the Act creates.
