Australia: Avoiding jurisdictional error: Is near enough good enough?

The recent decision of the WA Supreme Court of Appeal in Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Samsung C&T Corporation [2016] WASCA 130 (LORAC v Samsung) is an important one for parties seeking (or resisting an application for) judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

In particular, the decision confirms that courts will be reluctant to find jurisdictional error in a determination if the adjudicator at least means to apply the contract, even if he or she falls into error in that application.


The LORAC v Samsung decision is also important for three additional reasons:

  1. It makes clear that a payment dispute can arise before the amount claimed in a payment claim is due under the contract.
  2. There has been some judicial comment (by His Honour Mitchell J) to the effect that the question of whether an adjudicator should dismiss an application by reason of complexity will depend on an adjudicator's ability and experience. The Court of Appeal left open the question of whether this is the correct approach.
  3. It clarifies that the court, in deciding whether to grant leave to enforce a determination, has discretion to consider all the facts and circumstances of the individual case (including extraneous payments not made directly in respect of the relevant determination).


The recent LORAC v Samsung decision involved an appeal from a previous decision of the WA Supreme Court.1 The first respondent (Samsung) subcontracted the appellant (LORAC) to undertake the Port Landside Structural, Mechanical, Piping (SMP) and Electrical and Instrumentation (E&I) works at the Roy Hill project.

In January 2015, LORAC issued a progress claim under the subcontract. Samsung then exercised its contractual entitlement to terminate the subcontract for convenience. A dispute arose.

The parties signed an 'Interim Deed' which required Samsung to pay LORAC termination payments including an 'on account' amount of $45 million. Amongst other things, the termination payments covered all work done prior to termination. Samsung made the $45 million payment.

Importantly, the other termination costs payable under the Interim Deed were subject to two qualifications:

  • firstly, Samsung's right to set-off; and
  • secondly, a qualification that the total amount to be paid under the Interim Deed could not exceed the subcontract sum.

In February 2015, LORAC issued a second claim in respect of works it had performed prior to Samsung's termination of the subcontract. Samsung did not pay and LORAC applied for adjudication of both the January progress claim and the February claim under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (Act). The adjudicator determined both applications in favour of LORAC, requiring Samsung to pay LORAC a combined (additional) amount of about $44.1 million.

LORAC sought the WA Supreme Court's leave to register the determinations as judgments. In response, Samsung applied for judicial review of each determination, seeking to quash the determinations by writs of certiorari.2


His Honour Mitchell J heard LORAC and Samsung's applications together. His Honour upheld Samsung's applications for judicial review and each of the adjudicator's determinations were quashed.

Mitchell J found that the adjudication determinations were not made in accordance with proper legal principles. His Honour said that the adjudicator failed to resolve the payment disputes by reference to the terms of the parties' contract, thereby misapprehending the nature of his adjudicative function.

Therefore, Mitchell J denied leave to enforce those adjudication determinations. In any event, His Honour found that, even if the determinations were validly made, Samsung's liability to pay those amounts was discharged by its payments under the Interim Deed.

Mitchell J also dismissed Samsung's contention that a 'payment dispute' under the Act could not arise prior to the time that payment for a payment claim was due to be paid pursuant to the provisions of the contract.


The WA Supreme Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the decision of Mitchell J and determined that the adjudicator did not fall into jurisdictional error. However, the Court of Appeal declined to enforce the determinations in light of the payments Samsung had made under the Interim Deed.

  • Jurisdictional error
  • The Court of Appeal found that the adjudicator did not, in either determination, commit jurisdictional error.

    His Honour Martin CJ (with whom McLure P and Newnes JA agreed) set out the relevant authorities before concluding that:

  • on one end of the spectrum, an adjudicator will not exceed jurisdiction if he or she merely misconstrues, or makes an error in the application of, a construction contract;
  • on the other end of the spectrum, an adjudicator who expressly excludes consideration, or 'takes no account whatever', of a construction contract will exceed jurisdiction; and
  • in cases falling along the spectrum (between these extremes), the court must approach the question of jurisdictional error on a case-by-case basis. Applying these principles, Martin CJ held that the adjudicator had not fallen into jurisdictional error because any error made by the adjudicator was (merely) 'an error in the construction or application of the construction contract'.

    For example, his Honour said of the adjudicator's failure to correctly identify the date from which interest was payable: '... an error of this kind is precisely the kind of departure from contractual and legal precision which the legislature has accepted as part of the 'trade-off' for speed and efficiency.'3
  • When does a 'payment dispute' arise?
  • Samsung argued, on a proper construction, that (properly construed) s 6(a) of the Act4 has the effect that no payment dispute can arise prior to the time at which the amount claimed in a payment claim is due to be paid under the provisions of the contract.

    Mitchell J rejected each of Samsung's submissions and, in consequence, found that there was a payment dispute at the time LORAC submitted the first adjudication application.

    Martin CJ (Newnes JA agreeing) held that Mitchell J was correct to reject Samsung's submissions, adding a general observation that:

    '...the construction of s 6(a) of the Act for which Samsung contends would render words in that section otiose and redundant, and would be inconsistent with the evident objectives of the Act.'

    McLure P delivered separate reasons, but nonetheless agreed that a payment dispute can arise before payment is 'presently due, as in the phrase 'due and payable'.5

  • The enforcement of a determination
  • Martin CJ found that the Court, in considering an enforcement application, has discretion to consider all the facts and circumstances of the individual case.6 Those circumstances extend to considering other payments, and whether or not they were made directly as a result of the determination.7

    Martin CJ considered that extraneous payments made under the Interim Deed were made 'on account' and formed a running account of termination and post-termination costs. Martin CJ found that Samsung was not liable to pay the adjudication determination amounts as its liability was satisfied by the relevant appropriation in the running account, leaving Samsung with a reduced credit balance.8

    Although neither party made submissions on that point, Martin CJ stated in obiter that it is arguable that the Interim Deed itself could be a construction contract or a variation to the subcontract. The effect of this would be that the Interim Deed (and any liability to pay under the Interim Deed) would fall within the jurisdiction of the adjudicator and therefore not be amenable to review absent jurisdictional error.9

  • The question of complexity
  • The Court of Appeal left open the question as to the proper approach for the court to take in reviewing an adjudicator's refusal to decline jurisdiction for complexity.10

    In the decision at first instance, Mitchell J stated that in cases where the quantum in dispute is large or the primary issue is one of complicated contractual construction and the adjudicator is not legally trained, the proper approach is to dismiss the application for reasons of complexity under s 31(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.

    Martin CJ did not comment on this aspect of the first instance decision. Her Honour McLure P addressed the issue, albeit indirectly, in the course of discussing the distinction between narrow and broad jurisdictional facts. McLure P found that the complexity ground is a jurisdictional fact in the broad sense, as it requires the subjective view of the adjudicator.

    In these circumstances, McLure P found that an adjudicator's decision on the question of complexity was open for judicial review.11 Her Honour did not, however, express a view as to whether the adjudicator's legal training should be taken into account in determining whether he or she erred in determining a legally complex dispute.


In LORAC v Samsung, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the speed and efficiency of the adjudication process is a trade-off, which the legislature has accepted, for contractual and legal precision. The decision appears to buck the recent trend of the Supreme Court, which was to emphasise the importance of adjudicators making determinations in accordance with ordinary legal principles12. Going forward, the decision may make it difficult for a party to resist enforcement of a determination on the grounds that an adjudicator has misapplied the contract or the law. Although industry participants may be aggrieved by an adjudicator's determination, the decision emphasises the interim nature of the adjudication process.


1 Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Samsung C&T Corporation [2015] WASC 237 as reported in the Construction Law Update October 2015 < HTTP://WWW.CORRS.COM.AU/ASSETS/THINKING/PDF/CONSTRUCTION-LAW-UPDATE-OCTOBER-2015.PDF > at page 40.

2 Certiorari: a remedy issued by order or judgment of a court quashing the decision of a tribunal or inferior court on the grounds of jurisdictional error, an error of law on the face of the record or denial of procedural fairness.

3 [2016] WASCA 130 [107].

4 Which provides that: 'For the purposes of this Act, a payment dispute arises if —

  1. by the time when the amount claimed in a payment claim is due to be paid under the contract, the amount has not been paid in full, or the claim has been rejected or wholly or partly disputed;'.

5 See [2016] WASCA 130 [200]-[207] (McLure P).

6 [2016] WASCA 130 [141].

7 This is at odds with the District Court decision in Kuredale Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [2015] WADC 61 where Keen DCJ held that an overpayment under a construction contract does not constitute a "sufficient reason" for a court to decline to grant leave under section 43 of the Act.

8 [2016] WASCA 130 [161].

9 [2016] WASCA 130 [146].

10 [2015] WASC 237 at [223]-[226].

11 [2016] WASCA 130 [194], [198].

12 Red Ink Homes Pty Ltd v Court [2013] WASC 52; Delmere Holdings Pty Ltd v Green [2015] WASC 148.

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.

Chambers Asia Pacific Awards 2016 Winner – Australia
Client Service Award
Employer of Choice for Gender Equality (WGEA)

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”

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.