IN BRIEF
A losing party to an adjudication decision is often left
scrabbling around searching for reasons why the decision
shouldn't be enforced and why the losing party shouldn't
have to make payment. Well, no matter how ingenious the arguments,
the chances are that the court will enforce the adjudicator's
decision.
In the recent case of Seabreeze v Toposu the court
concluded that an arrangement, where Seabreeze agreed to pay
subcontractors directly, constituted a 'construction
contract' for the purposes of the Security of Payment
Act, therefore, the adjudicator's decision could be
enforced against Seabreeze.
THE FACTS
Seabreeze was developing land for residential purposes
and entered into a contract with a builder. In this case the
builder was Castle. As part of the contract
Castle agreed to only retain subcontractors with the prior
consent of Seabreeze. Where this had been done, Seabreeze
agreed to pay the subcontractors direct.
