Event and Time
Event Description
- Presence of a payment claim and schedule between the applicants (a joint venture) and respondent (Thales Australia Ltd) concerning a construction project.
- An adjudication determination made on 5 June 2020 granting the respondent a claim of over $25.5 million.
- Commencement of judicial review proceedings by the applicants regarding the adjudicator's determination.
- Additional claims of misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law introduced later.
Application and Claims
- The applicants seek a restraining order against the enforcement of the adjudication determination pending their appeal.
- They claim that the adjudicator made errors in her determination and that the respondent engaged in misleading conduct regarding the number of I/O points claimed.
Judicial Decisions
- The court granted an interlocutory restraining order pending the appeal and required the respondent to not enforce the adjudication determination.
- The court also directed costs of the application to be borne by the respondent, giving liberty to apply with 48-hours' notice for any change in circumstances.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Claimants (Applicants):
- Contend that the adjudicator’s determination was invalid and that it was based on misleading statements by the respondent regarding I/O points. - Argue that they faced reputational harm from enforced payment without due process.
- Respondent (Thales Australia Ltd):
- Argues that the adjudicator's determination is valid and supported by the evidence provided during the adjudication process. - Contends there is no prejudice to the applicants to deny enforcement, as they can provide a bank guarantee and return of funds if necessary. - Rejects claims of reputational harm as speculative without substantive evidence.