sitesearch
CASE NOTE: Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries Pty Limited [2010] NSWCA 190
Published in the MASTER BUILDER ASSOCIATION(MBA) NSW
Issue Five October - December 2010
Introduction
1. A recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal has cast new light on the issue of whether the Supreme Court has the power to review a determination of an adjudicator made pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (the Act).
2. Chase Oyster Bar (Chase) and Hamo Industries Pty Limited (Hamo) were parties to a construction contract under which Hamo was obliged to perform fit out work at the Chase Oyster Bar at the Chatswood Chase shopping center in Sydney.
3. Hamo made a Payment Claim under the Act. Chase failed to serve a Payment Schedule in response and Hamo sought to have the Payment Claim adjudicated pursuant to s. 17 of the Act. Section 17(2) of the Act provides that an adjudication application “cannot be made” unless a notice is served within 20 business days following the due date for payment. No such notice was served within the period set out in the Act by Hamo.
4. The Adjudicator later found, notwithstanding that Hamo’s notice was served more than 20 business days after the due date for payment, that he was satisfied the notice had been served in accordance with the time requirements of the Act. The Adjudicator went on to make a determination that Hamo was entitled to be paid the amount claimed.
5. Chase then applied to the Supreme Court, inter alia, for declaratory relief in respect of the Adjudicator’s determination. In particular, Chase sought relief in the nature of certiorari to quash the determination made by the Adjudicator. The principal thrust of Chase’s application was that the Adjudicator had no jurisdiction to hear an application which had not been commenced in accordance with s. 17 of the Act.
The decision at first instance
6. The difficulty faced by Chase in such an application is that it cut directly across the line of authority established by Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004) 61 NSWLR 421 (Brodyn). In Brodyn the Court of Appeal held that relief in the nature of certiorari was not available for jurisdictional error of law. Later decisions have adopted the reasoning in Brodyn to the extent that a finding by an adjudicator of a matter stipulated by s.17(2)(a) of the Act was within the power of an adjudicator to make and that an erroneous finding made in good faith was not a basis for concluding that the determination was void¹.
7. Chase argued that the reasoning in Brodyn had been eroded by the recent High Court decision in Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW (2010) 239 CLR 531 (Kirk). The High Court confirmed in Kirk that it is beyond the legislative power of the states to restrict a state Supreme Court’s power to grant certiorari in relation to jurisdictional error. It was submitted on behalf of Chase that in light of the approach taken in Kirk, Brodyn should no longer be followed.
8. When the matter came before McDougall J in the first instance, his Honour considered it was appropriate that the “Kirk” issue be referred to the Court of Appeal for determination. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court of Appeal for the determination of three discrete questions, which can be summarised as follows:
8.1. Whether the determination of the Adjudicator that he could hear and determine Hamo’s adjudication application should be set aside or quashed for jurisdictional error?
8.2. Whether in light of Kirk the decision in Brodyn should not be followed (limited to issues of jurisdictional error and jurisdictional review arising from the Act)?
8.3. Whether the Act, insofar as it expressly or impliedly limits the power of the Supreme Court to review an adjudicator’s determination for jurisdictional error, is inconsistent with the requirements of the Constitution that there be a State Supreme Court with jurisdiction to grant relief in the nature of certiorari.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
9. Put simply, the Court answered the questions removed to it in favour of Chase. In respect of the first question, Basten JA (with whom Spigelman CJ and McDougall J expressly agreed) preferred to answer in a manner which did not assume that the adjudicator had made the determination in question. In his Honour’s view, the adjudicator’s finding in relation to the notice purportedly served pursuant to s.17(2)(a) of the Act was without legal consequence and could not be quashed or set aside. At all events, Basten JA determined that the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, has power to judicially review the determination of an adjudicator and has the power to grant relief in the nature of certiorari and set the determination aside.
10. Each of Spigelman CJ, Basten JA and McDougall J had something to say on this issue and whilst there was some divergence in approach, their Honours respective reasoning can be reduced to the following points:
10.1. Their Honours considered an issue central to the availability of judicial review was the nature of the function of an adjudicator appointed under the Act; and whether the adjudicator was “…exercising public power, relevantly, a statutory power” (at [10]). The Court was unanimous in its view that an adjudicator exercised statutory or governmental powers.
10.2. Whether the essentially of the time limit specified in s.17(2)(a) was such that it gave rise to a jurisdictional fact. Basten JA and McDougall J reasoned that the manner in which the Act operates; the clear and precise specification of time stipulations and other requirements to be observed within the Act’s legislative scheme; and the imposition of such a mandatory regime regardless of any contract between the parties meant that compliance with the time limit specified in s.17(2)(a) was an essential condition for a valid adjudication application (and thus a jurisdictional fact).
10.3. Spigelman CJ, on the other hand, found that s.17(2)(a) did not invoke a jurisdictional fact and preferred the view that s.17 was not addressed to the adjudicator and was not a matter which he was directed to “determine” within s. 22(1) of the Act. His Honour concentrated more on the structure and language of the Act’s legislative scheme. In particular, Spigelman CJ focused on the fact that the legislative scheme “…strongly suggests that Parliament intended the time limits to operate precisely in accordance with their terms” (at [50]) as a foundation for his Honour’s finding that there had been jurisdictional error.
10.4. Each of their Honours agreed that the powers given by the Act to an adjudicator to determine an adjudication application (set out in s.22 of the Act) do not include the power to determine whether a claimant has complied with s.17(2)(a) of the Act.
11. In that light, their Honours formed the view that determinations by adjudicators appointed under the Act are amenable to orders in the nature of certiorari. As Basten JA put it:
“… the adjudicator’s conclusion that the adjudication application was valid depended either on a miscalculation of the period identified in s. 17(2)(a), or a misreading of the statute. If the error fell into the former category, the conclusion was one which not only lacked support in, but was inconsistent with, the primary facts as found. If in the latter category, the error involved a misconstruction of the statute in relation to the conferral of authority. On either view, the error was jurisdictional and is one in respect of which this Court can intervene.”> (at [103])
12. In relation to the second question dealing with the decision of Brodyn, the Court exercised a considerable degree of circumspection. Basten JA considered that Brodyn: “…may not have decided the matters identified…in such broad terms as is there assumed.” (at [106]) In any event, his Honour considered the propositions set out in the question to be wrong; and dispensed with the Brodyn/Kirk question by commenting that the conclusions embodied in the question “…do not follow from some reconsideration of the law required by Kirk” (at [106]). Nevertheless, Basten JA answered the question in the following manner:
“To the extent that Brodyn Pty v Davenport held, in relation to an adjudication application which was not in compliance with s 17(2)(a) of the Act, the matters set out in the question at a, b and c, it was in error.” (at [108])
13. Spigelman CJ approached the Brodyn question by interpreting in some detail the decision of Hodgson JA in Brodyn, in particular the adoption by Hodgson JA of an “essential pre-condition test” at the expense of an assessment as to whether an error by an adjudicator is jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. Spigelman CJ was of the view that the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional error has been placed by recent High Court authority “…at the center of Australian administrative law jurisprudence” and “…in a manner which is not consistent with the reasoning in Brodyn, on one view of that reasoning.” (at [29]) His Honour also commented that the significance of Kirk is that “it has given the distinction a constitutional dimension in State law, to the same general effect as had earlier been established for Commonwealth law.” (at [29])
14. McDougall J analysed the decisions of Brodyn and Kirk in some detail and ultimately came to the view that the question should be answered in the manner proposed by Basten JA.
15. Question 3 was readily disposed of by the Court. Spigelman CJ considered that, in one sense the issue had been clarified by Kirk. However, his Honour, like Basten JA and McDougall J was of the view that it was unnecessary in this case to call upon the authority of Kirk. That was so because their Honours were unanimous in finding that the privative provision embodied in s.25 of the Act operates only in a very limited area and could not be construed as ousting the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction; nor does it contain any express provision denying the availability of certiorari.
Conclusion
16. Leaving aside the complexities of the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the issues of administrative law raised by this case, the decision contains some important implications for the building and construction industry. For instance, it is tolerably clear that it is no longer the case that an adjudicator’s determination is not amenable to judicial review for jurisdictional error.
17. Accordingly, where the time limits imposed by the Act are not adhered to by a party and an adjudicator errs in that regard, the aggrieved party now has a right to apply to the Supreme Court for a review of the adjudicator’s decision. A situation which no doubt only reinforces the need for critical observance of such time limits. Whether or not this means the opening of flood gates remains to be seen. The issue, it appears, was certainly on the mind of Spigelman CJ as the following remark seems to indicate:
“As Hodgson JA recognised in Brodyn, the purpose of the legislative scheme is best served by restricting the scope of intervention by the Courts. I do not believe that there will be frequent occasion for such interference – perhaps after a transitional period – once it is realised in the building industry that punctilious compliance with each specific time limit is required if a builder is to have the benefit the scheme established by the Act.” (at [55])
18. Not much reading between those lines is required to gain the impression that, flood gates or not, the Supreme Court will be robust in its rejection of adjudications which fail to adhere to time limits or where time limits have been incorrectly calculated.
19. There are other jurisdictional requirements for the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act to apply and particularly for a claim to be made based on a Payment Claim or an Adjudication Application to be made.
Richard Watson
Watson & Watson
Solicitor for Chase Oyster Bar
together with Ben De Buse of Counsel who appeared on behalf of Chase Oyster Bar with the assistance of Lyndon Reid, Barrister
¹ Per McDougall J in Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 332 at[19].
Please note that our provision of any telephone advice to you is only a general discussion to assist as to whether you wish to instruct us. Telephone discussions should not be construed as legal advice and are not to be relied upon. Legal advice which you can rely on can only be properly provided by us to you at or following an initial conference. We are not responsible for any action you may take or fail to take based upon the provision of our telephone advice to you. If you wish to arrange a conference, please contact us.
Online enquiry form
Watson & Watson are always available to provide expert legal advice and answer any questions you may have.
Recent Cases
The Collapse of a Young Couple's Dream Home - 17/05/2012
David Quinn was approached by a young married couple with infant children who had purchased the “Dream Home” in a satellite suburb of Campbelltown in the early 1980s. The young couple’s “Dream Home” collapsed around them in 1984.
Successfully Defending a Property Relationships Act, 1984 Claim - $482,500.00 - 17/05/2012
The principal of the firm, Richard Watson, was retained in 2009 to assist a middle aged female client in relation to a claim made by her former de facto spouse in respect of Supreme Court of New South Wales proceedings.
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act - 30/09/2010
Adjudicator’s decision is now able to be challenged for jurisdictional error in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, Court of Appeal in September 2010 held that a decision of an adjudicator...
Defective Building Work Residential Home - Insolvency - 30/09/2010
Watson & Watson act on behalf of the Home Owner in relation to a claim against a Builder which became insolvent and was unable to complete their many projects. Generally, Creditors were out of pocket and an arrangement was entered...
Testimonials
14/05/2012
"Richard,
Many thanks for taking my call on Friday, your advice was very helpful.
Regards"
- J.M, Abu Dhabi
21/03/2012
"G’day Richard,
Thank you for the win at the Tribunal on Friday, I do appreciate the discount in fees that you gave me it has helped me out a lot. I also like to thank Dave and Kim for their mountain of paperwork they had to go through just to build the case."
- G.S, NSW
1/03/2012
"Dear Kathy
It was lovely meeting you, thank you for taking on my case and providing much appreciated support”
- M.R, North Sydney
28/02/2012
“Dear Richard,
Many thanks again for all your work on my family law matters & my will.
All the best,"
- N.G, Sydney
7/11/2011
Many thanks for all your support in securing our unit. We very much appreciate your help. Kind Regards.
- M & C, Hills District
1/11/2011
Absolutely fabulous, we are definitely keen on this strategy. Very happy with your process so far. Many thanks again.
- R.E, Sydney
9/10/2011
"Thank you for your email and effort to help me... I do not know what I would have done without you."
- K.S, Byron Bay
2/10/2011
"Thanks for yesterday, great advice and some more clarity in my mind on how we will be proceeding."
- P.B, Sydney
29/09/2011
"Richard. Many thanks. We are very appreciative of the professional assistance given to us in relation to our claim for defective building works. With your professional help we were able to come to a satisfactory resolution to our long standing problem"
- J.H, Gosford
20/09/2011
"Many thanks for all the work & effort you have done to help us secure our unit. We very much appreciate the time you have taken."
- M.C, Sydney
22/07/2011
"I am personally grateful for the effort put into this by all concerned. I do believe the issues have been thoroughly aired and we can now finalise the matter."
- J.T, Sydney
18/07/2011
"To Chris Jefferies,
We wish to thank you for the efficiency you have displayed in the Conciliation Conference and for settling the matter for us."
- Holden Barlow Solicitors, Perth
28/06/2011
"Thanks again for all your help. You've been an absolute delight to deal with."
-B.M, Sydney
3/06/2011
"Thank you for your advice and taking my case in this matter. Peter has spoken so highly of you."
- S.Y, Sydney
26/05/2011
"Wonderful news!
Thank you kindly for your great work, I am so very pleased and thrilled with the result.
My life is so much brighter and we can stay here in Australia.
All my family are grateful and so happy."
- L.S, Sydney
25/05/2011
"I would also like to acknowledge all Dennis' expertise and hard work."
- P.L, Sydney
17/05/2011
"Just to say a big thank you for today! I am delighted with the result."
- J.M, Eastern Suburbs
11/05/2011
"I am writing to send my deepest thanks for yesterday's outcome. Your efforts in pressing the case have been nothing short of magnificent.
I have been (in part) of a mind set that defeat and rejection was to be my soul mate on this issue. But yesterday's fine transition from nothing to something is such an incredibley happy outcome. Your considered opinitions, general care and legwork, as a commmiteed and compassionate advocate will stick as a life long memory. I feel extremely fortunate and proud of what has been achieved.
I understand too, with the joy comes the responsibility. The message of dilligence is not lost and is branded into the forefront of my mind.
Yours in sincere thanks."
- D.G, Sydney
11/05/2011
"Excellent! Progress. The ball is in your court. Congratulations."
- M.D, Sydney
4/05/2011
"Despite trying very hard to come to amicable agreement we found ourselves in the dreadful position of constant intimidation correspondence from the solicitors of the buildings who undertook residential renovations. As a result I instructed Richard Watson to act in the matter. It turned out that having a firm of solicitors highly experienced and qualified in the very complex area of building law proved essential and indeed saved the day. This together with their kindness and open and honest frankness made something that was looking impossible into a great success."
- M.N, Eastern Suburbs
21/04/2011
"The letters to the solicitors on the other side are perfect. Please send it."
- C.F, Lower North Shore
20/04/2011
"Thank you very much for you have done job for me!"
-S.L Parramatta
31/03/2011
"We greatly appreciate the efficiency and also the time to see us the Tuesday night before we exchanged contracts. We moved in on the weekend and are very happy."
- PB-H, Lower North Shore
29/03/2011
"I appreciate the professional assistance given."
- D.D, South West Suburbs
4/03/2011
"You have been wonderful and worth every penny."
- P.H, Canada
4/03/2011
"I'd just like to say a big thank you!
I appreciate your help and patience throughout."
- J.F, Eastern Suburbs
21/01/2011
"Thank you, thank you, thank you."
- Z.H, Sydney City
1/12/2010
"I found myself in a difficult situation and was fortunate to engage
Richard Watson of Watson & Watson. Richard helped explain the
options and alternatives available to me and the likely outcomes having
regard to all matters to be taken into account. Richard helped me come
to a very satisfactory resolution of the matters and as a result I have
been able to secure accommodation for myself and children in the local
district in a relatively short period of time. In addition to the advice as to the various alternatives,
options and likely outcomes I found Richard caring.
Throughout when things were difficult Richard was a steady influence so
that I could achieve the optimum outcome for all concerned. I recommend
Watson & Watson for any other person in similar circumstances. "
-S.J.G Cremorne
1/11/2010
"Just would to wish you a very Merry Christmas. I will never
forget your kindness and generosity - and strength at times I feel you
worked with the mighty Lord - quite testifying!
I have so much gained from the experience in many ways."
Best Wishes and Many Regards,
-R.L
1/08/2010
"Hi Richard ,
This is just a brief note of thanks for taking care of me through this horrible situation.
I know you are a pro but for those of us that are faced with the reality... it's scary & sad. "
Best Regards,
-D.T
1/08/2010
"I was in a position that I had exchanged on the purchase of a
property and I had agreement from my ex for funding the purchase,
however, after I exchanged to purchase, my ex changed his verbal
agreement. I came to Watson & Watson as my daughter had received a
very good outcome with understanding. Watson & Watson in a very
short period of time achieved a cost effective settlement which allowed
me to complete my purchase. Their experience relating to various
alternatives gave me other alternatives and allowed me to conclude the
finalization of the property matter with my ex and the purchase of the
property in a very short period of time and to my utmost satisfaction."
-K.S Leura
1/07/2010
"Watson & Watson have performed exceptionally in a cost
effective manner for the Bank for in excess of 20 years and never
recovered less than expectations. Their work is professional, cost
effective and always above expectations. In all my years with Watson
& Watson the Bank has only lost one case and that was the first case
in which I was at the Bank instructing another solicitor for the Bank
and Watson & Watson acted for the customer against the Bank, our
solicitor lost, Watson & Watson acting for the customer against the
Bank WON."
"I have been instructing legal firms in relation to litigation and
recovery actions for the Bank for more than 20 years. Richard Watson and
his team are result driven. The costs on a case by case basis is
significantly less than other firms which I instruct from time to time
on behalf of the Bank."
-H.B Bank Sydney
1/06/2010
"Dear Richard,,
Many thanks for all that you have done.
It is been a fantastic result."
Thank you
Best Wishes"
-R.L Surry Hills
31/05/2010
"My family bought property in the 1950's and registered it in
the name of my brother. My brother assumed ownership of the property.
Nothing was done until Richard Watson became involved and the matter was
settled with a substantial payment to me, more than doubling my ample
wealth."
-L.S Canberra
1/05/2010
"I was concerned as to the costs of the process. Watson &
Watson are focused on results and means by which I could provide
information required which assisted in a cost effective resolution.
Watson & Watson assisted in identifying the issues, alternatives and
options and what was the best way to resolution."
-R.B
1/02/2010
"I went to two other solicitors and then Watson & Watson
before making a decision. Watson & Watson raised issues that other
solicitors had not thought of. Richard Watson explained clearly issues
relating to spousal maintenance that may arise now and in the future and
a method of protection from future claims. Not only did Watson &
Watson deal with the immediate needs but took steps relating to
protection in the future and advice in relation to estate and other
matters following the break up of my relationship. I have recommended
Watson & Watson for others int he unfortunate position of break up
of their relationship."
-A.L Pymble
- watson & watson |
- strata lawyers |
- building & construction |
- bankruptcy & insolvency |
- family law |
- defacto relationships |
- AVO protection orders |
- divorce, separation & marriage law |
- child custody |
- family court lawyers |
- property settlement lawyers |
- link exchange
Copyright © 2007 | Watson & Watson Solicitors | Level 9, 300 George Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000 | Phone: 02 9221 6011 Fax: 02 9221 4369