Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
previous12...6789101112...150151next
  • 16th September 2014
    McNab Developments (Qld) Pty Ltd v MAK Construction Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QCA 232
    Where the appellant was a contractor and the first respondent was a subcontractor for a building project – where the first respondent served a payment claim on the appellant totalling $853,952.97 – where the appellant contended that the subcontract had been terminated due to the first respondent’s default – where the first respondent sought adjudication of its claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the adjudication was heard by the third respondent – where the third respondent decided that the appellant owed the first respondent $241,441.20 – where the appellant claimed a right to liquidated damages under the subcontract – where the appellant’s right to liquidated damages depended on the date for practical completion – where the applicant filed an application to the Supreme Court seeking...
    Click here to read more
  • 15th September 2014
    Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor v Allstate Access (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 223
    Where the first respondent agreed to supply the applicants with scaffolding equipment – where the first respondent alleged the applicants damaged the equipment – where the first respondent made a payment claim pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) and the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) – where the third respondent adjudicator ordered the applicants pay the first respondent for the replacement costs of the equipment – whether the amounts claimed were payments for the supply of goods or for damages for breach of contract – whether the adjudicator erred in the interpretation of the contract – whether such an error is a jurisdictional error
    Click here to read more
  • 27th August 2014
    Mykra Pty Ltd v All State Maintenance Pty Ltd [2014] SADC 149
    The plaintiff served a ‘payment claim’ on the defendant pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA). Unless the recipient responds with a ‘payment schedule’ setting out what it does and does not dispute, and why, a plaintiff is entitled to summary judgement for the amount of its payment claim. In this way the Act provides a quick and summary process to enable contractors to secure progress payments under building and construction contracts. The defendant responded to the plaintiff’s payment claim by email referring to an earlier schedule it had sent denying aspects of the payment claim and agreeing to make some payment.  The issue was whether this response amounted to a valid responding payment schedule.
    Click here to read more
  • 27th August 2014
    Johnston v Lianda Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1178
    whether the Magistrate properly applied the test for summary judgment - whether there was a triable issue - application for leave to appeal from a costs order in the Local Court
    Click here to read more
  • 27th August 2014
    Eco Steel Homes Pty Ltd v Hippo’s Concreting Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 135
    Where the applicant seeks a declaration that the adjudicator’s decision is void for jurisdictional error – where the applicant contends that the payment claims did not comply with s 17 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (“BCIPA”) – where the applicant contends that prior proceedings instituted by the first respondent in the Magistrates Court prevent the first respondent from having recourse to the adjudication process under BCIPA – where the applicant contends that it did not enter into contractual agreement with the first respondent – whether for these reasons the adjudicator’s decision is void for jurisdictional error
    Click here to read more
  • 27th August 2014
    CMF Projects Pty Ltd v Masic Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 209
    Where the applicant seeks a declaration that the adjudicator’s decision is void – where the adjudicator did not consider the applicant’s “adjudication response” – where the adjudicator excluded the “adjudication response” from consideration as it was not received within the required time limits of s 24 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the applicant contends that its “adjudication response” was in time, due to the way in which the “notice of an adjudicator’s acceptance of the application” was served on the applicant – whether the “adjudication response” conformed with the requirements of s 24 and consequently the adjudicator’s decision is void for not taking the “adjudication response” into consideration.
    Click here to read more
  • 21st August 2014
    Field Deployment Solutions Pty Ltd v SC Projects Australia Pty Ltd [2014] WASAT 101
    Review of dismissal of adjudication application under Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Dismissed for being out of time - Whether review limited to ground upon which adjudicator relied - Whether contract concerned a 'construction contract' - Whether any 'payment dispute' - Contractual terms relating to invoicing and payment for services considered
    Click here to read more
  • 15th August 2014
    Kaycee Trucking Pty Ltd v M and C Rogers Transport Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 185
    whether the Payment Claim was validly made – whether the Payment Claim was made under a relevant construction contract – whether the Adjudication Application sought adjudication of a claim under a relevant construction contract – whether the Payment Claim related to more than one construction contract Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 30, s 31
    Click here to read more
  • 11th August 2014
    Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd and Anor (No 2) [2014] QSC 180
    Where the applicant was entirely successful – where the decision of the adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) was declared to be of no effect – whether a subsequent adjudication should affect the costs order - whether costs should follow the event.
    Click here to read more
  • 8th August 2014
    Seabreeze Manly v Toposu [2014] NSWSC 1097
    Payment claims - whether there was a 'construction contract' in accordance with the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 1999 (NSW), s4 - definition and construction of 'construction contract' - definition and construction of 'arrangement'
    Click here to read more
previous12...6789101112...150151next