Australia, Aug. 26 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 25:

1. On 18 July 2025, the plaintiff, DECC Credit Pty Ltd (DECC), sought an interlocutory injunction on an ex parte basis which enjoined the first defendant, Australia Wide Lining Pty Ltd (AWL), from requesting and filing an adjudication certificate pursuant to ss 24(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOP Act). DECC also sought to enjoin AWL from taking any step to enforce any judgment resulting from the filing of any such certificate.

2. DECC made, as a condition of this relief being granted, payment into Court of $1,733,741.97, representing the sum payable by it to AWL under an adjudication determination dated 4 July 2025.

3. The proceedings were listed on 22 July 2025 to enable the first defendant to be heard on the maintenance of the injunction, pending the conclusion of the proceedings. At the hearing, orders were made. The injunction imposed on 18 July 2025 was lifted to the extent of $1,394,161.08. At DECC's request, the sum of $1,394,161.08 was ordered to be paid out of Court to it. Therefore, AWL intends to file an adjudication certificate for that sum.

4. At the time, the parties indicated expressly that they did not require further reasons beyond those given orally. However, several hours after the Court had adjourned, AWL's lawyers contacted Chambers and sought written reasons. These are those reasons.

Legal Principles

5. In essence, it was DECC's contention at the hearing of the motion that, in light of alleged serious defects in the adjudication determination, and on the balance of convenience, the interlocutory injunction ought to remain in force. The principles governing the exercise of the Court's discretion to order the maintenance of such an injunction in proceedings of the present kind were recently outlined in A-Civil Aust Pty Ltd v Ceerose Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 144 at [21]-[22] (Payne JA, Simpson and Basten AJJA):

Where money is paid into Court under s 25(4) [of the SOP Act] ... the court has power to stay the payment out of money to the claimant under the determination pending resolution of the respondent's judicial review proceedings. There is also power to grant an injunction or stay pending final resolution of contractual proceedings contemplated by s 32. However, in both cases the power must be exercised in accordance with the policy of the [SOP] Act. In both cases a stay or interlocutory injunction will impinge on the two statutory policies, namely, (i) to maintain the flow of money to the subcontractor, and (ii) as an interim measure, to place the risk of insolvency on the principal.

The application of the general principles governing the grant of interlocutory relief, including determining whether there is a serious question to be tried and where the balance of convenience lies, will be constrained by the need to give effect to these statutory policies. Further, the principles will require separate application in each case.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1983ec9f5895bfdeb712e851)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.