Requirement to comply with the procedural requirements in the SOP Act

Late last year in the case of Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 190 (Chase Oyster Bar), the NSW Court of Appeal opened the door on new grounds to challenge decisions made by adjudicators under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (the SOP Act).

It found that if all of the requirements in the SOP Act had not been complied with, the Supreme Court had the right to review and, if required, overturn the adjudication determination. The extent to which that door has been opened was considered in the case of Steel v Beks [2010] NSWSC 1404.

Facts

Steel is a supplier of temporary building structures and Beks is a small building contractor that erects buildings supplied by Steel. Beks erected building structures for Steel at the Emirates Resort, Wolgan Valley, Coates Balmain and the Caltex Refinery at Kurnell in NSW.