Australia (Southern Territory) Cases

Click on a case to view.

  • 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.
  • 19th November 2013
    Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd v Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2013] SASCFC 124
    Building, Engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of Entitlement to and recovery of Progress Payments – Adjudication of payment claims
  • 26th September 2013
    Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd v Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd [2013] SASFCC 99
    A Judge of the District Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent, Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd, from obtaining an adjudication certificate, filing it as a judgment or enforcing the judgment under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA) ("the Act"). The basis for seeking the injunction was a claim that, if Romaldi was successful in the substantive action in the District Court, there was a sufficient risk that Romaldi would not recover from Interiors the amount of the adjudication. A Judge of this Court allowed Interiors’ appeal and discharged the interlocutory injunction.  His honour held that the District Court Judge had no power to grant the injunction and in any event a stay of the judgment based on an adjudication certificate would not have been warranted. Interiors obtained an adjudication certificate and filed...
  • 5th July 2013
    Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd v Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd [2013] SASC 110
    The appellant in this matter appeals from an interlocutory decision of a judge of the District Court. The respondent was found liable by an adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA) (`the Act') to pay the appellant money owed for work completed. The respondent sought an injunction from the District Court preventing the appellant from obtaining the adjudication certificate. It is alleged the appellant is impecunious and unable to repay the monies if the respondent is successful in its claim for damages. The judge granted an injunction restraining the appellant from obtaining an adjudication certificate under the Act, finding there was a high level of likelihood the appellant was insolvent.
  • 3rd June 2013
    Built Environs Pty Ltd v Tali Engineering Pty Ltd & ors [2013] SASC 84
    Tali Engineering Pty Ltd lodged with Built Environs Pty Ltd a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA). Built Environs issued a responding payment schedule assessing the amount due at nil by setting off liquidated damages for delayed substantial completion. Tali Engineering applied to an authorised nominating authority, Nominator Pty Ltd, to appoint an adjudicator to adjudicate the claim. Nominator appointed Mr Allan. Mr Allan determined that Tali Engineering was entitled to payment of $579,420.90 (plus GST). Built Environs seeks an order setting aside Mr Allan’s determination as a nullity on six grounds........
  • 3rd April 2013
    Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd v Adelaide Interior Linings [2013] SADC 39
    The plaintiff builder seeks a stay or an injunction preventing the defendant sub-contractor from recovering payment to it by the plaintiff of monies ordered to be paid by an adjudicator pursuant to determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA). The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is impecunious and will be unable to repay the monies if the plaintiff is successful in its claim in this court for damages for defective and uncompleted work. The defendant submits the court has no power to grant a stay or injunction and if it does have power, the balance of convenience does not favour the granting of relief.