Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd v Holcim

THE GROUNDS OF ATTACK

1. Acciona contends that the Determination is void on each of the following six grounds: 1. the Adjudicator had no jurisdiction because there was not a valid payment claim or valid adjudication application, in that the payment claim the subject of the determination impermissibly claimed for work done under two or more contracts. 2. the Adjudicator failed to consider Acciona's contention that she lacked jurisdiction. 3. the Adjudicator failed to afford Acciona procedural fairness by finding a contractual basis for valuing progress payments upon which Holcim had not relied and which had not been the subject of submissions. 4. the Adjudicator misapprehended the nature of her task by relying on payment schedules which had previously passed between the parties rather than the Payment Schedule (the subject of adjudication application) and, in doing so, failed to afford Acciona procedural fairness by not giving it advance notice of her intention of so doing. 5. the Adjudicator failed to afford Acciona procedural fairness by rejecting a contention by Acciona that it was not in a position properly to assess Holcim's claims because Holcim had not provided delivery dockets establishing that it had delivered what it was claiming it delivered, for reasons not advanced by Holcim, and by making credit findings against Acciona's witness, Mr Li, on bases not put by Holcim and not the subject of submissions or advance notice. 6. the Adjudicator failed to discharge the statutory task of satisfying herself that Holcim had substantiated its claims.

The Goods Supply Agreement

1. The GSA comprises an executed instrument of agreement, a series of numbered Agreed Terms, and a number of schedules and annexures. Acciona is defined as the D&C Contractor and Holcim as the Supplier.
2. Agreement is defined in Clause 1.1 of the Agreed Terms to be the agreement between the D&C Contractor and the Supplier constituted by the Contract Documents. Contract Documents is defined to mean the documents described as such in Item 4 of Schedule A. Schedule A is an information table. Schedule A defined Contract Documents to include the Annexures, the Agreed Terms, and Site Procedures document provided to the Supplier. The Contract Documents, as defined, do not include Purchase Orders.
3. The Instrument of agreement provides that the D&C Contractor must pay the Supplier the Contract Sum and any other sums which become payable under the Agreement, in accordance with the Agreement.
4. Under Schedule A, the time for submission of a payment claim is the 25th day of the month. [1]
5. The GSA (in the Agreed Terms section) includes the following terms: 2 TERM AND PURCHASE ORDERS (a) The Agreement commences on the Commencement Date and continues for the Term. (b) The Agreement constitutes a commitment by the Supplier to supply to the D&C Contractor the Goods in accordance with the Agreement and the SLR Documentation. (c) If the D&C Contractor wishes to order Goods it will issue a Purchase Order. Upon the issue of a Purchase Order a separate contract will come into existence between the D&C Contractor and the Supplier on the terms set out in this Agreement. [emphasis added] (d) Not used (e) Purchase orders shall include: (i) description of the particular Goods and Related Services to be provided by the Supplier to the D&C Contractor; (ii) the Time or Times for Delivery which must comply with the lead times specified in Annexure B of this Agreement; and (iii) the Delivery Location. (f) The Agreement sets out the terms and conditions governing the provision of the Goods the subject of a Purchase Order, which will be read as incorporating the terms of this Agreement to the exclusion of all other terms and conditions set out in the Purchase Order or incorporated by reference into the Purchase Order. … 3 PRIMARY OBLIGATIONS, RISKS, INDEMNITIES AND WARRANTIES 3.1 Primary Obligations … (b) The D&C Contractor must pay the Contract Sum in accordance with the Agreement and otherwise comply with the Agreement. … 23.2 Payment Claims (a) The Supplier may deliver a payment claim at the later of the times specified or milestones described in Item 20 of Schedule A. … (b) A payment claim must: (i) include (and only include) amounts in respect of Goods which: (A) are the subject of a Purchase Order; (B) comply with the Agreement; and (C) [Not used] (ii) evidence the amount claimed to be due to the Supplier in respect of 23.2(b)(i) and otherwise under the Agreement, calculated in accordance with the Agreement; (iii ) deduct amounts due from the Supplier to the D&C Contractor under the Agreement, including the amount of liquidated damages for which the Supplier is indebted to the D&C Contractor under clause 19; and (iv) be accompanied by: (A) delivery dockets signed by the D&C Contractor in respect of Goods the subject of a payment claim. Provided that there is a D&C Contractor representative present at the Delivery Location for every delivery and is available to sign the delivery dockets, any delivery docket claimed that is not signed by the D&C Contractor may be rejected; and (B) such further information as the D&C Contractor reasonably requires. (c) A payment claim which does not comply with the requirements of clause 23.2(b) or which is delivered earlier than is permitted by this clause 23.2(a) is invalid. An invalid payment claim must be resubmitted, in a valid form, on the next occasion that a payment claim can be submitted under clause 23.2(a). 23.3 Payment certificates (a) Within 14 days of the receipt of a valid payment claim, the D&C Contractor's Representative must: (i) assess the payment claim and determine: (A) the value of the Goods which comply with the Agreement and which were delivered by the Supplier in a calendar month which precedes the month of the payment claim; (B) other amounts owing between the parties, under the Agreement; and (C) amounts previously paid under the Agreement; and (ii) issue to the Supplier a payment certificate stating the amounts determined under clause 23.3(a)(i) and, having regard to those amounts, the amount of the payment which is to be made by the D&C Contractor to the Supplier or by the Supplier to the D&C Contractor. (b) The D&C Contractor's Representative must set out, in any payment certificate, the calculations employed to arrive at the amount and, if the amount is more or less than the amount claimed by the Supplier, the reasons for the difference.

Payment Claims and Payment Schedules 30 to 34

1. Over the life of the GSA, Acciona issued some 12,500 purchase orders and Holcim directed 36 payment claims to Acciona.
2. From July 2019, Acciona stopped paying Holcim's payment claims.
3. On 25 July 2019, Holcim made payment claim 30 for $683,808.04 (excluding GST). In Acciona's payment schedule 30, $658,889.31 was certified as the value of the goods supplied but the value of the scheduled amount was nil on the basis of asserted set-offs of $2,184,773.76 said to arise because Holcim had wrongly charged plant opening fees and was not entitled to charge $2,004,773.76 for delay and cancellations, which had previously been paid by Acciona.
4. On 27 August 2019, Holcim made payment claim 31 for $643,771.67 (excluding GST). In Acciona's payment schedule 31, $611,256.33 was certified as the value of the goods supplied but the scheduled amount was nil on the basis of claimed set-offs (as in the case of payment schedule 30).
5. On 25 September 2019, Holcim made payment claim 32 for $373,944.51 (excluding GST). In Acciona's payment schedule 32, $324,329.51 was certified as the value of the goods supplied but the scheduled amount was nil on the basis of claimed set-offs of $1,646,375, being damages claimed for late deliveries.
6. On 25 October 2019, Holcim made payment claim 33 for $268,375 (excluding GST). In Acciona's payment schedule 33, $227,929 was certified as the value of the goods supplied but the scheduled amount was nil on the basis of claimed set-offs of $1,646,375 (as in the case of payment schedule 32).
7. On 26 November 2019, Holcim made payment claim 34 for $142,487.37 (excluding GST). In Acciona's payment schedule 34, $129,422.68 was certified as the value of the goods supplied but the scheduled amount was nil on the basis of claimed set-offs of $38,240,718.50. Acciona asserted that Holcim was not entitled to charge amounts totalling $2,078,417.06 for delay, which had previously been paid by Acciona, and had made late deliveries, for which Acciona claimed damages of $36,162,301.44.

Payment Claim 36

1. On 28 May 2020, Holcim made the Payment Claim comprising: 1. $1,021,330.81 for newly claimed measured works, $323,830.81 which was for works from October 2019 to April 2020, and $697,500 was for plant opening charges from 26 March 2016 to 16 February 2020 which had not previously been charged by Holcim. 2. $1,718,246.80 for works in payment claims 30 to 34.
2. On 12 June 2020, Acciona served Payment Schedule 36 (the Payment Schedule). It valued the new measured works at $252,428.66, but the scheduled amount was stated to be nil because of the claimed set-offs of $38,240,718.50. The Payment Schedule stated, "Without admission and for the purposes of this payment schedule only, the D&C Contractor does not press this Set-Off in this payment schedule."
3. The Payment Schedule also stated: The reasons as to why the scheduled amount is less than the claimed amount are set out in the attached Schedules (which are part of and incorporated into this Payment Schedule). In addition to the matters raised in this payment schedule, the D&C Contractor refers to, and relies upon the Payment Schedules dated: 8th August 2019, 9th September 2019, 11th October 2019, 8th November 2019, 28 April 2020…
4. On 26 June 2020, Holcim lodged its adjudication application for the Payment Claim (the Adjudication Application). The Adjudication Application included copies of payment claims and payment schedules 30 to 34.
5. On 3 July 2020, Acciona lodged its adjudication response (the Adjudication Response).
6. In it, Acciona raised two matters, described as "jurisdictional issues", which had not previously been raised in the Payment Schedule. It contended that the Payment Claim was invalid and that the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to determine the Adjudication Application because the Payment Claim was for multiple purchase orders, which constituted separate contracts between the parties rather than one single contract, and the Adjudication Application was for more than one payment claim.
7. By the Determination, the Adjudicator determined that Acciona was required to pay Holcim $2,953,035.57 (including GST) from 10 July 2020, that interest was payable, and that Acciona was liable to pay 100% of the adjudication fees.
8. I now turn to the grounds of attack.

Ground 1

1. Ground 1 is that the Adjudicator had no jurisdiction because there was not a valid payment claim or valid adjudication application, in that the Payment Claim impermissibly claimed for work done under two or more contracts.
2. I uphold Ground 1.
3. In paragraphs 12 to 14 of the Determination, the Adjudicator said (footnotes omitted): 12. In the adjudication response, the respondent submits for the first time that the payment claim is invalid because it relates to more than one construction contract and, further and in the alternative, that the adjudication application is invalid because it relates to more than one payment claim. 13. The first submission is predicated on the notion that the various amounts claimed are not payable under the Agreement, but are instead payable under: (a) one of the 12,500 or so separate contracts said to arise by virtue of the Agreement and, in particular, by virtue of cl 2(c), which relevantly provides that "[u]pon the issue of a Purchase Order a separate contract will come into existence"; or (b) "an earlier agreement or earlier agreements". As such, the first submission is made in support of a reason or reasons not included in the payment schedule. Quite apart from the fact that the respondent is precluded from including reasons in its adjudication response that it did not include in its payment schedule - see s 20(2B) of the Act, it follows that the first submission is not duly made in support of the payment schedule and cannot be considered by me - see s 22(2) of the Act. 14. The respondent's second submission simply mischaracterises the claimant's submissions in respect of amounts in the payment claim that were also the subject of earlier claims as the claimant making an application in respect of multiple payment claims. However, the claimant was entitled to include amounts that had been the subject of previous claims in the subject payment claim - see s 13(6) of the Act, and to make submissions in support of same, and those things does not make the application one that concerns multiple payment claims.
4. In Rail Corporation of NSW v Nebax Constructions [2012] NSWSC 6 at [44]-[46] (Nebax), McDougall J held that s 13(5) prevents the service of more than one payment claim per reference date per construction contract, so that there can only be one adjudication application for any particular payment claim for any particular contract. His Honour observed that s 17(1) does not authorise the lodging of multiple adjudication applications in respect of the one claim. In Matrix Projects (Qld) Pty Ltd v Luscombe [2013] QSC 4 at [17] (Matrix), Douglas J agreed with McDougall J's reasoning and conclusion.
5. In Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd v Alpha A Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 239 at [55]-[61] (Trinco), McDougall J applied this reasoning to hold that a single progress claim cannot validly claim for work done under more than one contract. In Matrix at [20], Douglas J articulated this as, "…the variety of different types of contract for construction work relied upon in the payment claim is fatal to its validity.": see too SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd v Lanskey Constructions [2019] QSC 81 at [16]-[17], [21].
6. It was not suggested that any of Nebax, Matrix, or Trinco were wrongly decided.
7. In Olympia Group (NSW) Pty Ltd v Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 165 at [11], Ball J held that s 20(2B) did not prevent the respondent from raising grounds, not put in its payment schedule, on which it was asserted that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to make a determination. In Nebax at [34]-[39], McDougall J agreed: see too National Management Group Pty Ltd v Biriel Industries Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 219 at [200].
8. In John Holland Pty Limited v Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales & Ors [2007] NSWCA 19 at [47]-[50], Giles JA considered that a decision by an adjudicator should not ignore something which he or she is aware of and is also relevant to real issues arising under s 20(2B) simply because the matter was not raised in submissions duly raised by the respondent.
9. The Adjudicator had no jurisdiction because the Payment Claim was invalid and ineffective to engage the operation of the Act. By the parties' express agreement in cl 2 of the Agreed Terms, each time a purchase order was issued, a separate contract came into existence between Acciona and Holcim on the terms set out in the GSA. Each such contract was governed by terms contained in the overarching GSA instrument, which terms became incorporate in every subsequent separate contract, but each time Acciona placed a purchase order, a separate contract for discrete work with a separate payment date came into existence.
10. Applying Trinco, the Payment Claim, which straddled numerous purchase orders (and therefore numerous contracts) with separate payment dates, did not constitute a valid payment claim.
11. It follows that the Determination is void and will be quashed.

Ground 2

1. Ground 2 is that the Adjudicator failed to consider Acciona's contention that she lacked jurisdiction.
2. The substance of Ground 2 is that, irrespective of whether there was jurisdiction, the failure of the Adjudicator to consider the no jurisdiction contention vitiated the Determination. Accordingly, Acciona argued, the Determination would still be void even if the Court found that there was jurisdiction.
3. The Ground does not arise given my finding of lack of jurisdiction.
4. However, I consider that the Adjudicator was bound to consider the no jurisdiction submission and to satisfy herself that there was jurisdiction. Had she done so, there was at least a realistic possibility that she would have found no jurisdiction: see Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 123; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421 at [46], [50].
5. The difficulty with Ground 2 is that if the Court had found jurisdiction, Acciona's contention is that the Determination was nevertheless void because the Adjudicator did not consider a contention which, if she had considered it and decided it correctly, would have resulted in a finding of jurisdiction. Acciona's submission amounts to one that it was deprived of the opportunity that the Adjudicator might have made an error by finding no jurisdiction.
6. I am by no means certain that if I had otherwise found jurisdiction I would have considered it appropriate nevertheless to grant relief on this ground.

Ground 3

1. Ground 3 is that the Adjudicator failed to afford Acciona procedural fairness by finding a contractual basis for valuing progress payments upon which Holcim had not relied and which had not been the subject of submissions.
2. Although it is not strictly necessary to consider this Ground, I will do so on the hypothesis that the Adjudicator had jurisdiction.
3. I would uphold it.
4. In paragraphs 38 to 44 of the Determination, the Adjudicator said: 38. In the payment schedule, the respondent asserts the following, ostensibly as reasons why the scheduled amount is less than the claimed amount: (a) the respondent "is entitled to assess the amounts claimed... [by] reference to the Agreement and accompanying documentation i.e. delivery dockets"; (b) the respondent has "historically conducted assessments... in accordance with Clause 23 of the Agreement"; and (c) the respondent "has assessed the... claims against limited site records and made deductions accordingly". 39. To the extent these matters are pressed at all in the adjudication response, it is in the submissions that: (a) the claimant was required to provide sufficient information in the payment claim for the respondent to be able to verify or reject it; (b) the claimant provided limited information in support of its claim; and (c) the respondent, assessed the claim on the basis of the information provided by the claimant in the payment claim. 40. However, even if I were to accept all three of those propositions, I would not be satisfied that anything turns on that because the claimant provided enough information in the payment claim for the respondent to be able to verify or reject it (as already determined above) and because, even if the respondent is 'entitled' to assess claims as it says or implies it is (which is to say, by reference to accompanying documentation or as it has done historically or against limited site records), the claimant is nevertheless entitled to an amount determined in accordance with s 9(a) or (b) of the Act, which is to say, to the amount calculated in accordance with the terms of the Agreement or, if the Agreement makes no express provision for the matter, to the amount calculated on the basis of the value of goods supplied under the Agreement. 41. Although the respondent does not appear to address the application of s 9 of the Act to the instant case, the claimant submits that sub-clause (a) applies but then only refers to cl 3.1(b) of the Agreement, which doesn't deal with the calculation of the amount of progress payments at all. 42. Doing the best that I can in these circumstances, it seem to me that cl 23.3(a) of the Agreement impliedly provides that the claimant is entitled to an amount that reflects: (A) the value of Goods which comply with the Agreement and which were delivered by the Supplier in a calendar month which precedes the month of the payment claim; (B) other amounts owing between the parties, under the Agreement; and (C) amounts previously paid under the Agreement. 43. So long as the respondent has sufficient information to be able to verify or reject claimed amounts, the real issues arising are therefore whether the claimant has supplied the goods it says it has supplied, whether those goods have the value the claimant says they have, and whether there are other amounts owing to one party or the other. 44. In the adjudication response, the respondent argues that "the claimant bears the onus of proving the facts, the existence of which would give the claimant the right to its claim or the civil remedy sought". However, it seems to me to be only partly true and, at the very least, to apply only to disputed facts.
5. An adjudicator must afford the contestants natural justice, which includes affording them procedural fairness. It is a denial of natural justice if an adjudicator decides the case on a basis different from that advocated by the parties, without notifying them of his or her intention to do so and permitting them to be heard: Musico v Davenport [2003] NSWSC 977; IWD No 2 Pty Ltd v Level Orange Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1394 at [34]-[35]; Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v DDI Group Pty Ltd (2017) 95 NSWLR 82 at [54]; Brolton Group Pty Ltd v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 63 at [53].
6. The Adjudicator requested the parties to agree to an extension of time for determining the Adjudication Application and they agreed. The Adjudicator did not request further written submissions or call a conference.
7. The Adjudicator was plainly conscious both of the necessity to assess the progress payment in accordance with s 9 and Holcim's failure to identify the precise basis on which it was contending the progress payment was to be assessed. She observed that Holcim relied on s 9(a) but referred to cl 3.1(b) of the Agreed Terms, which did not deal with calculation of the amount of progress payments "at all".
8. She recorded Acciona's submissions but expressed a view that, even if they were correct, Holcim was nevertheless entitled to an amount determined in accordance with s 9(a) or (b).
9. The Adjudicator found the solution for Holcim by way of an implication to which she considered cl 23.3(a) of the GSA gave rise, which was not the subject of any submission by either Holcim or Acciona, and she did not give Acciona an opportunity of dealing with it.
10. This was a denial of natural justice.
11. In passing, I consider that the Adjudicator fell into error in finding that cl 23.3(a) helped. It is not a provision to which s 9(a) applies because it does not provide a method of calculation for a payment claim and, if it does, it is not an express provision with respect to that matter (hence the necessity for an implication) with the consequence that s 9(b), rather than s 9(a), was in play. The further consequence, is that she was obliged to proceed in accordance with s 10(1)(b), which she did not do.

Ground 4

1. Ground 4 is that the Adjudicator misapprehended the nature of her task by relying on payment schedules which had previously passed between the parties rather than the Payment Schedule (the subject of adjudication application) and, in doing so, failed to afford Acciona procedural fairness by not giving it advance notice of her intention of so doing.
2. I would not uphold Ground 4.
3. Whilst the Adjudicator did pay attention to payment claims 30 to 34, I do not consider it to be a fair reading of the determination that she did not pay attention to the Payment Schedule or that she approached the matter without regard to the Payment Schedule. The previous payment schedules were before her.
4. In its Adjudication Application, Holcim recounted the process which the parties had adopted in relation to earlier payment schedules and relied upon its earlier position in maintaining its entitlement for amounts which Acciona had declined to certify.
5. It seems to me that the Adjudicator's approach was, in effect, to treat the parties' previous dealings and certifications as admissions for the purpose of making her Determination. I think this approach was erroneous for at least the reason that in many instances in the earlier payment schedules amounts were accepted by Acciona under the caption, "On account only, no substantiation provided." This was no admission.
6. However, I am not satisfied that insufficient advance notice of the possibility of her proceeding as she did was given. Her error was not jurisdictional.

Ground 5

1. Ground 5 is that the Adjudicator failed to afford Acciona procedural fairness by rejecting a contention by Acciona that it was not in a position properly to assess Holcim's claims because Holcim had not provided delivery dockets establishing that it had delivered what it was claiming it delivered, for reasons not advanced by Holcim, and by making credit findings against Acciona's witness, Mr Li, on bases not put by Holcim and not the subject of submissions or notice in advance.
2. I would uphold Ground 5.
3. In its Adjudication Response, Acciona contended that Holcim failed to substantiate the Payment Claim, that it had failed to provide evidence to Acciona in support of its claim, and it disregarded cl 23.2 of the GSA. Acciona relied on a witness statement of Mr Firmin Li dated 3 July 2020.
4. In paragraphs 33 to 37 of the Determination, the Adjudicator said: 33. The respondent also refers to paragraphs 44 to 48 of Mr Firmin Li's statement and submits that they confirm that: a. Mr Li was unable to ascertain the amount claimed... pursuant to the information provided by the Claimant...; b. to Mr Li's knowledge, a representative of [the respondent] was available on site to receive a delivery and sign the relevant docket on each delivery made by the Claimant; and c. it was Mr Li's understanding and reasonable expectation that, if a representative of [the respondent] was not present on site, the Claimant would raise this with [the respondent] given the Clause 23 Requirements. 34. Although it is true that Mr Li says he would have expected the claimant to notify the respondent if a representative were not available to sign delivery dockets, and appears to say that he couldn't verify the amounts claimed because the claimant failed to provide copies of the delivery dockets with its payment claims (albeit at [52] and not at [44] to [48]), he does not confirm that a representative was available to sign each delivery docket (as he simply states that he was unaware of any specific instances of that occurring). 35. Mr Li's evidence is also notable in establishing that he is a junior (or very junior) employee of the respondent (he was first employed by the respondent while also enrolled in two degree courses, which he completed over the six years between 2014 and 2019), that his "approximately 3 years of experience in the civil construction industry" therefore cannot have all been full-time, that the respondent had "reliable", "intermittent" and "unreliable" access to the claimant's on-line platform until about 21 October 2019 and that he had formed the view that the claimant was relying on Reconciliation Meetings for the purpose of evading its contractual obligation to corroborate the amounts it claimed in payment claims, and in failing to address, let alone establish, the full extent of records, knowledge and other materials the respondent had or had access to, or required, to be able to verify or reject claimed amounts and what, if anything, delivery dockets would add to that. 36. On this last issue, which really is the nub of the matter, it cannot in my view, reasonably be suggested that a party which orders concrete by way of purchase order requires a delivery docket, let alone a signed delivery docket, to be able to verify or reject a claim to be paid for it. While the situation is obviously considerably more complicated on a project like the Sydney Light Rail project, which involved many thousands of deliveries over a number of years, I am still not satisfied that the failure to include the copies of delivery dockets in the payment claim caused the respondent to be unable to verify or reject claimed amounts because: (a) the respondent previously assessed many payment claims that did not include copies of delivery dockets; (b) the respondent does not deny that it was given, and therefore had, a physical copy of many delivery dockets; (c) the respondent does not explain how it dealt with those dockets, including whether, for example, they were available on the respondent's own systems (Mr Li's evidence is only to the effect that the respondent was not contractually obliged to upload delivery dockets to the respondent's own system); (d) the respondent had access to delivery dockets via the claimant's on-line platform until sometime in late October 2019; (e) lack of access to the claimant's on-line system could therefore only have impacted the respondent's assessment of IPC SLR 33 and 34 and, in each of those cases, the respondent was nevertheless content to certify the vast bulk of line item amounts (the respondent routinely notes that such certification is "on account only" but there is nothing unusual in that); (f) Mr Li provides no basis for his assessment of the quality of the respondent's access to the claimant's on-line platform, and his various statements on that point are, at best, contradictory; (g) the respondent's Mr Bridgwood "typically had available Holcim's delivery dockets" - see Mr Dorling's statement at [52], which the respondent does not dispute; (h) Mr Li exaggerates the effort involved in assessing IPC SLR30 to 34 as the value (and, by implication, number) of goods and other charges claimed therein was relatively low compared to the value (and number) of goods and other charges claimed in previous periods; (i) each payment claim included a table for setting out the invoice number, delivery docket number, date, address and zone, material code and description (including the relevant purchase order number), units of measurements, quantities, rates and amounts claimed; and (j) the respondent had access to other corroborating information (including purchase orders, site diaries, daywork dockets etc.); (k) the respondent's own assessment of IPC SLR30 to 32 included many references to the contents of delivery dockets; and (l) the claimant's assessments of the abovementioned assessments included copies of disputed delivery dockets; and (m) although Mr Li is happy to infer from his experience assessing daywork dockets, that "it is extremely rare and highly irregular that dockets are left unsigned... [and] it would not make sense for representatives to sign the subcontractor's daywork docket and not the Claimant's delivery dockets", I have not been provided with enough information to conclude that inference is reasonably drawn. 37. In summary, it is abundantly clear that the claimant is not required to include supporting information in a payment claim made under the Act and that the failure to include delivery dockets or other unspecified supporting information did not prevent the respondent from verifying or rejecting any particular line item claim - in fact or otherwise find.
5. Acciona argued that Holcim advanced none of the 13 reasons given by the Adjudicator in paragraph 36 of the Determination for reaching the conclusion that the absence of delivery dockets did not prevent Acciona from verifying or rejecting any particular line item claim. Holcim did not argue that it advanced any of them.
6. Acciona's final submissions, however, focused on the adverse credit findings with respect to Mr Li in paragraphs 35 and 36(f), (h) and (m) of the Determination.
7. In paragraph 35, the Adjudicator concluded that Mr Li could not have been employed full-time by Acciona because he was enrolled in two degree courses between 2015 and 2019. Counsel for Holcim correctly did not seek to support this non sequitur.
8. In paragraphs 36(f) and (g), the Adjudicator referred to various statements by Mr Li as being contradictory and to his having exaggerated the effort involved in assessing payment claims 30 to 34.
9. In my opinion, natural justice dictated the Adjudicator give Acciona advance notice that she was considering these significant adverse findings (which had not been the subject of any contention by Holcim) and affording it an opportunity of dealing them.

Ground 6

1. Ground 6 is that the Adjudicator failed to discharge the statutory task of satisfying herself that Holcim had substantiated its claims.
2. I would uphold Ground 6.
3. Acciona relied, in particular, on paragraph 44 of the Determination, where the Adjudicator said: 44. In the adjudication response, the respondent argues that "the claimant bears the onus of proving the facts, the existence of which would give the claimant the right to its claim or the civil remedy sought". However, it seems to me to be only partly true and, at the very least, to apply only to disputed facts.
4. Acciona argued that it was incumbent on Holcim to satisfy the Adjudicator that it had carried out the work it was claiming for, and that the work should be so. It argued that the Adjudicator could not avoid the task of forming that satisfaction merely because Acciona was not positively disputing the facts, not least in circumstances where Acciona had told the Adjudicator that it was not in a position to do so having regard to the absence of information provided by Holcim.
5. In Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Monford Group Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 491 at [2], Stevenson J made the point that: The mere absence of material adduced on behalf of a respondent to an adjudication application does not, without more, mean that an adjudicator can simply award the amount of the claim without addressing its merits.
6. In Pacific General Securities Ltd v Soliman & Sons [2006] NSWSC 13 at [82], Brereton J said that: …the absence of [material put forward by the respondent] does not entitle the adjudicator simply to award the amount of the claim without addressing its merits, which as a minimum will involve determining whether the construction work identified in the payment claim has been carried out, and what is its value.
7. Applying these statements of principle, Acciona's submissions have force. Absence of dispute of a fact does not establish it. Holcim still bore the onus of establishing its claim, including those elements of it where Acciona adduced no material to dispute it, and the Adjudicator had a duty to satisfy herself that the claimed work had been done and of its value, a task which, by virtue of her approach, she did not carry out.

Conclusion

1. I make the following orders: 1. Declare that Adjudication Determination 2020061EA made by the second defendant on 23 July 2020 is void. 2. Order that the said Adjudication Determination be quashed. 3. Order that the money paid into Court by the plaintiff and any interest be paid out to it or, on direction, to its solicitors. 4. Provisionally order that the first defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs. This order will solidify 7 business days after delivery of this judgment unless a party notifies my Associate in writing that some other order is sought, briefly stating the grounds, in which event the order will be vacated and arrangements will be made to determine costs.

Endnote

1. See s 8(2)(a). DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 29 September 2020