Event and Time
Event Description
The case concerns an adjudication decision made under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (the Act). The applicant, ACP, engaged RDG for refurbishment work on a commercial building and challenges the validity of a decision made by the adjudicator regarding payment claims and schedules.
Application and Claims
- ACP claims that RDG's invoice lacks sufficient detail to qualify as a payment claim under section 68 of the Act.
- ACP asserts that two emails they sent to RDG should be recognized as payment schedules.
- ACP argues that the adjudicator’s failure to recognize these emails constitutes a jurisdictional error that invalidates the adjudication decision.
- RDG contends that the invoice was valid and the emails did not qualify as payment schedules, arguing any potential error was within the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.
Judicial Decisions
The adjudicator concluded that RDG's invoice was a valid payment claim but determined that the ACP emails were not payment schedules. This ruling is what ACP challenged in court.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- ACP's Claims:
- The RDG Invoice lacked detail regarding the work performed by employees and insufficient explanation correlating to the QS report. - The emails sent were intended as payment schedules which were improperly disregarded by the adjudicator.
- RDG's Arguments:
- The RDG Invoice was detailed enough to constitute a payment claim. - The emails from ACP did not express an intent to pay any amount and failed to specify any amount less than that claimed, thus they were not valid payment schedules.
- Third Party Submissions:
- The adjudicator, having made no submissions or provided evidence, simply accepted the claims of RDG.