Australia: Adjudication Void: Failure to Bona Fide Exercise Powers and Denial of Natural Justice

Last Updated: 28 February 2006
Article by Mathew Stulic

Key Points

  • The recent decision in Lanskey is rare in that an adjudicator's determination was void on the grounds that the respondent in that case was denied natural justice and the adjudicator did not bona fide exercise his powers.
  • The decision however contains little analysis of the meaning of "bona fide exercise of powers".

Following the decision in Brodyn v Davenport [2004] NSWCA 394, dissatisfied respondents under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) have had limited grounds upon which to challenge adjudication determinations. In Brodyn it was held that in NSW the only circumstances where a determination is void is if:

  • an essential pre-condition to the determination or a basic and essential requirement of the Act was not satisfied;
  • there was a substantial denial of natural justice (such as a failure to receive and consider the respondent's submissions); or
  • the purported determination was not a bona fide attempt by the adjudicator to exercise the power granted under the Act.

In the recent case of Lanskey Constructions Pty Limited v Noxequin Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2005] NSWSC 963, applying the principles set out in Brodyn, Associate Justice Macready declared the determination of an adjudicator void on the grounds that the respondent in that case was denied natural justice and the adjudicator did not bona fide exercise his powers granted under the Act.

There have been a small number of cases where the Supreme Court of NSW has set aside determinations on the basis of denial of natural justice. Aside from Lanskey, however, the only other case where a determination has been declared void on the ground that the adjudicator did not engage in a bona fide exercise of his powers was in Timwin Constructions v Façade Innovations [2005] NSWSC 548.


Noxequin was a formwork subcontractor engaged by a builder, Lanskey, to assist in the construction of apartments in Wollongong. Noxequin made a payment claim under the Act against Lanskey for final payment and release of retention moneys totalling $145,849.40. Lanskey responded with what was described in the judgment as "a highly detailed" payment schedule in which it rejected Noxequin's claims and instead claimed that it was owed $21,481.92. Lanskey's position was that it was entitled to charge some 69 items to Noxequin, including defect rectification works and liquidated damages, and therefore deducted the cost of these 69 items.

Noxequin lodged an adjudication application and Lanskey served its response. Both were described in the judgment as "detailed documents". The adjudicator issued a determination in which he found that Noxequin was entitled to the amount of $160,434.34.

Lanskey commenced proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court seeking orders declaring that the determination was void claiming that the adjudicator failed to engage in a bona fide exercise of power and failed to accord it natural justice. These failures were said to relate to the adjudicator's treatment of Lanskey's claims in respect of deductions and also the question of whether Noxequin's payment claim was served within the 12 month limitation period under section 13(4) of the Act.

The principles

Associate Justice Macready considered the measure of natural justice which the Act affords as set out in Brodyn. In Brodyn it was held that the intention of the legislature as set out in sections 17(1) and (2), 20, 21(1), and 22(2)(d) of the Act is that there is a requirement that respondents be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions. Crucially, if there is a failure by an adjudicator to receive and consider submissions which breaches these provisions, the determination will be void.

He then went on to consider the only previous decision (Timwin Constructions v Façade Innovations [2005] NSWSC 548) in which it was held that an adjudicator failed to engage in a bona fide exercise of his powers. In Timwin, Justice McDougall stated that, at its core, this requirement for validity is dependent upon the adjudicator making an effort to understand and deal with the issues in the discharge of his statutory function. Section 22(2) of the Act, for example, requires an adjudicator to "consider" certain matters. Justice McDougall stated that a requirement to "consider" certain matters is equivalent to a requirement to have regard to something.

Lanskey's claim for deductions

The adjudicator stated in his deter-mination that while Lanskey had included in its adjudication response its reasons for deducting amounts from what Noxequin may have otherwise been entitled to, he did not consider it necessary for him to "go into each of the 69 claims for set-off". The adjudicator gave his reasons as to why Lanskey's arguments ought not be considered. The subcontract between the parties made provision for a Subcontract Superintendent. Notwithstanding this, the parties did not appoint a Superintendent. His conclusion seemed to be that Lanskey had no right to make its own assessment of its entitlement to set-off, that is, that this was a function to be exercised by the (non-existent) Superintendent. Associate Justice Macready stated that this conclusion was "probably wrong" because the subcontract contained an express right of set-off, which the adjudicator appears not to have noticed. He also appeared to ignore section 10(1)(iv) of the Act, which provides that in valuing construction work carried out or undertaken to be carried out, if the contract makes no provision with respect to the matter, the adjudicator must have regard to the estimated cost of rectifying any defects.

Whether the adjudicator was correct or not on this issue was not critical. The crucial issue was that he considered all 69 items that were deducted as "set-offs". Associate Justice Macready held that there was a real question raised by Lanskey about work that it alleged was incomplete under the subcontract. It was held that the manner in which the adjudicator dealt with all of the 69 items as "set-offs" avoided the necessity for him to consider Lanskey's detailed submissions in respect of each item. This meant that the adjudicator had not considered Lanskey's submissions under section 22 of the Act. This failure amounted to a denial of natural justice.

Lanskey submitted in its adjudication response that it was entitled to deduct the amounts referred to. It referred to an express contractual entitlement (in clause 37.3 of the Subcontract) to make an offsetting claim, however Associate Justice Macready concluded that the adjudicator may not have considered each matter contained in Lanskey's adjudication response, since he made no reference to clause 37.3 at any point in his determination - it appeared in the latter part of the adjudication response document. This led him to conclude that the adjudicator did not bona fide exercise his power to determine the matter.

Entire determination void

The omissions of work only amounted to $12,435.39, which was not a substantial proportion of the overall payment claim. It was held that this invalidated the whole determination - the court cannot declare only part of an adjudication determination void. In this regard, Associate Justice Macready followed the reasoning in the decision of Multiplex Constructions Pty Limited v Luikens [2003] NSWSC 1140, where Justice Palmer considered the relevant principles. This case was handed down before (and was not followed in) Brodyn. In Multiplex, it was held that certiorari was available as a remedy where an adjudication was invalid. While that aspect was not followed in Brodyn, the reasoning on this point was found to still be sound, that is, because section 22(1) of the Act requires an adjudicator to produce only three findings - the adjudicated amount, the date upon which the amount becomes payable and the rate of interest payable - the whole of the determination is defective if an error infects any part of it.

Lanskey's "time bar" submission

Lanskey made a submission in its payment schedule that Noxequin was not entitled to make a payment claim as a period of 12 months had passed after the construction work to which the claim related was last carried out, in violation of the "time bar" in section 13(4)(b) of the Act.

In his determination, the adjudicator stated that in his view, in the 12 months preceding the payment claim, Noxequin, "at least provided some services", and therefore was the claim was within time. This however, was not the basis upon which the parties argued the matter before him. The argument that the parties presented to him was whether the work ceased on the date contended for by Lanskey or as conten-ded for by Noxequin. Associate Justice Macready held that the adjud-icator made no reference to the evidence before him on this point and decided the matter on a basis not put before him - a basis upon which neither party had notice of, nor could they address.

This was also held to be a further denial of natural justice.


While this is a rare case where it was held that an adjudicator, in addition to denying the parties the measure of natural justice which the Act affords, also failed to bona fide exercise his powers under the Act, it is unlikely that this decision will embolden respondents in a new raft of challenges under the Act. Associate Justice Macready appears to have treated the failure to consider the respondent's submissions regarding the items set off against the claimant as constituting both a denial of natural justice and a failure to bona fide exercise his powers. The decision however contains little analysis of the meaning of "bona fide exercise of powers". In that respect, Lanskey provides no further advance on the principles applied in Timwin.

Lanskey confirms that since Brodyn, the position in NSW is that where only part of an adjudication suffers from a defect that renders it void, the whole of the determination is void and it is not open to the court to declare only part of an adjudication determination void. While this might be an inconvenient result in some cases, it is a result dictated by the legislature.

In Lanskey, the adjudicator seriously erred. Essentially, this was due to his failure to properly consider all submissions. It is clear in NSW that such failure will render a determination void.

Thanks to Alex Harrington for his help in writing this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.