Your selected location:
23 Feb 2017

In an earlier article, we looked at how the High Court appeal in Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Lewence Construction Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] HCA 52 (“Southern Han”) promised to open the way to challenging adjudicators’ determinations without the need to show jurisdictional error.

This was expected to mark a substantial change in the position that only “jurisdictional error” could ground judicial review: Brodyn v Davenport [2004] NSWCA 394, Chase Oyster Bar [2010] NSWCA 190, applied in WA in Perrinepod [2011] WASCA 217 and O’Donnell Griffin [2007] WASC 215.

The need for “jurisdictional error” has effectively protected adjudicators’ determinations of construction pay disputes from review by the courts, except where the adjudicator could be shown to have had no power to make the challenged determination. Examples of what courts in WA have treated as jurisdictional errors appear in our earlier articles linked below:

                        1) HHG Construction Law Series Part 13

                          2) Court clarifies adjudicator’s role in constructions payment claims

                        3) HHG Construction Law Series Part 8

Free of the need to find “jurisdictional error”, Supreme Courts around Australia might have gained power to overturn adjudicators’ determinations of construction payment disputes based on any misunderstanding of the law.

This change was expected to result from the following developments in the courts:

a)            In Shade Systems [2016] NSWSC 770, NSW Supreme Court Acting Justice Emmett denied that any such distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional error applied and proceeded to overturn an adjudicator’s decision based on a simple (and not “jurisdictional”) error of law: that is, the adjudicator assumed Probuild was burdened with the onus of demonstrating that Shade Systems was as fault for failing to achieve practical completion by set date before being entitled to liquidated damages.

b)            At about the same time, the contractor’s senior counsel in Southern Han argued in a High Court special leave application (seeking permission to appeal to the High Court from the NSW Court of Appeal), that the High Court should consider following Emmett AJ in Shade Systems.  Senior counsel also pointed to similar doubts about the need for jurisdictional error that Basten JA of the NSW Court of Appeal had expressed earlier in Chase Oyster Bar.

So far, so good.  Then, in a surprise turn of events:

a)            Emmett AJ’s decision in Shade Systems was overturned in a special appeal, determined by five judges of the NSW Court of Appeal instead of the usual three:  Shade Systems Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 379; and

b)            the contractor’s senior counsel in Southern Han abandoned his argument concerning jurisdictional error and instead, argued that the error in that case concerned a ‘jurisdictional fact’.

As we read the judgments of both the High Court in Southern Han and the NSW Court of Appeal in Shade Systems, neither has foreclosed on the possibility that the need to show jurisdictional error will be dispensed with in the future. Rather, the NSW Court of Appeal simply said that this was a matter for the High Court to determine. Meanwhile, the High Court said that ‘jurisdictional fact’ was nothing more than a convenient ‘label’ and attaching that label to the contractor’s argument added nothing to the court’s analysis of the legislation governing the adjudicator’s powers. That this was the only reference to the concept of ‘jurisdictional fact’ in the entire Southern Han judgment suggests that jurisdictional error was not integral to the Court’s decision in that case. This raises the question whether the High Court might in future, if the issue were squarely raised for its consideration, dispense with the jurisdictional/non-jurisdictional distinction altogether.

Even if this distinction were to be dispensed with altogether, that may only affect adjudicators’ determinations in the east coast. This is because the security of payment provisions in WA’s Construction Contracts Act 2004 limits the courts’ power to review and overturn adjudicators’ determinations in a way that its east coast counterparts do not.

The WA Act does this by expressly providing at section 46 that only a decision or determination of an adjudicator cannot be reviewed by the Court unless it relates to decision by the adjudicator to dismiss the application:

There is no such express limitation (known as a “privative clause”) on the courts’ power to review and overturn adjudicators’ determinations anywhere in the east coast security of payment statutes.

WA’s privative clauses may mean that courts in WA will continue to apply the jurisdictional/non-jurisdictional distinction, even if that distinction is ultimately dispensed with on the east coast.

Consistently with our commitment to the construction community, we will continue to keep construction contractors and their principals updated on developments in this important and rapidly changing area of security of payment law.

This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. If you would like further information in relation to this matter or other legal matters please contact our office on Freecall 1800 609 945 or email us now

*This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. Please consult one of our experienced Legal Team for specific advice relevant to your situation.

Supporting Western Australian's for more than 100 years

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"

Sitka Pil

My circumstances at the time I made contact with HHG were dire following my argument being rejected by two no win no fee firms. Following my initial meeting with HHG's employment law team I was left feeling extremely positive by the response and concern shown by HHG in regards to their support of my argument along with their preparedness to pursue an outcome on my behalf.

I accept the fact that nobody really wins in these cases (mental health/ workplace) however the end result was what would be considered most favourable and far in excess of what would have been achieved had I not sought the advice from HHG.

I have no hesitation in recommending HHG to anyone caught up in the messy circumstances I found myself in at the time.

Great advice and five-star commitment to their client!!"

Nathan Lynch

"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."

Jim Goodwin

"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"

Dr Lana Bell

"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."

Jan Atkinson

"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however, Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."

Lynette Livesey

"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."

Nigel Plowman, Director at McKinley Plowman & Associates

"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."

Richard Beal, Director at BDO

"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."

Michael Malone, Founder of iiNet

"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law. I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."

Bernice Climie

"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve Harvey and Jane Powell

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."

Amanda Williamson

"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."

Kerry Samson

"I had a fantastic lawyer in Anne Hurley. She helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly, professional manner. First class, thanks Anne"

Graeme Hammond

"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first-class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."

Carolin Grimm - Marine Plant Systems

"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."

Rosslyn Tasker - COO AltusQ Pty Ltd

"Good service you can count on."

Miles Lee

"HHG Legal Group has provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyond reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligence process has been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."

Mark Armitage

"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Anne."

Jacques Taylor

"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Legal Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."

Tony Walker

Select your location:

Please select your nearest office location so we can show you the most relevant information.