|Patrick Stevedores Operations No. 2 Pty Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (NSWSC) - security of payments - claim was not for progress payment - determinations void
|Northern Midlands Council v Telstra Corporation Ltd (TASSC) - environment and planning - Telstra entitled to erect tower in accordance with permit
|Gwelo Developments Pty Ltd v Brierty Ltd (NTSC) - security of payments - applications in respect of payment disputes subject of earlier application invalid
|Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
|Patrick Stevedores Operations No. 2 Pty Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd  NSWSC 1413
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Security of payments - plaintiff sought declarations that first adjudicator's determination of payment claim by McConnell Dowell under s22 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) was void, and that second adjudicator's determination in respect of same payment claim was also void - held: no part of amount claimed by McConnell Dowell was claim for progress payment within meaning of the Act either because claim was not a claim for construction work under a construction contract (or for the supply or related goods or services), or because there was no reference date in respect of which claim could be made - neither adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine payment claim - determinations void.
Patrick Stevedores Operations No. 2 Pty Ltd
|Northern Midlands Council v Telstra Corporation Ltd  TASSC 54
Supreme Court of Tasmania
Environment and planning - Telstra obtained permit for erection of tower pursuant to Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas) - Council contended permit was of no effect as a result of the commencement of a new interim planning scheme - council contended permit issued pursuant to tribunal's decision was of no effect, and that Telstra needed to apply for a fresh permit under the interim planning scheme - proper construction of s62(3) - held: Act did not contain a coherent scheme in relation to status of permits, applications and appeals when a planning scheme was superseded by an interim planning scheme - when s62(3) applied and tribunal made determination requiring granting of a new permit in accordance with a superseded planning scheme, permit would have effect as if that planning scheme had not been superseded - Telstra could lawfully undertake development in accordance with permit - declarations refused - action dismissed.
Northern Midlands Council
|Gwelo Developments Pty Ltd v Brierty Ltd  NTSC 44
Supreme Court of the Northern Territory
Security of payments - parties entered construction contract for performance of subcontract works in connection with development of shopping centre - payment disputes arose - defendant served adjudication application on plaintiff under s27 Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act (NT) seeking adjudication of both disputes - plaintiff did not consent to simultaneous adjudication - defendant withdrew application and made two fresh applications - plaintiff claimed payments disputes had been subject of previous application and that s27 precluded making of further application- an application has already been made - held: there was no reason to refuse to grant a remedy on discretionary grounds - s 27 applied to preclude a party from making a further application for adjudication where an application in relation to the same payment dispute had been made at any time in the past - no need for application to be still on foot - s27 precluded a party from making application for an adjudication where the applicant had withdrawn the earlier application and where the first application sought adjudication of more than one payment dispute without the consent of the other party - applications not validly made and of no effect.
Gwelo Developments Pty Ltd