Reward Interiors Pty Ltd v Tackelly No. 8 Pty Ltd

2025/00238817

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – in 2023, Tackelly No. 8 Pty Ltd (Tackelly) and Reward Interiors Pty Ltd trading as Reward Group (Reward) entered into a contract for Reward to provide design and construction services for a hotel redevelopment in Perth – in accordance with the contract, Reward provided Tackelly with two bank guarantees, each in the sum of $625,000 – in 2024 the parties fell into dispute after Reward made a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA) (SOP Act) for $10.6 million and sought release of the bank guarantees – Tackelly responded with a payment schedule that stated Reward owed over $1.3 million to Tackelly and refused to release the bank guarantees – in October 2024 Reward made an adjudication application pursuant to s 28 of the SOP Act, seeking a determination of its payment claim and the return of the guarantees – in November 2024 the adjudicator determined that Reward was entitled to payment of $2.6 million and ordered release of guarantees – on 4 December 2024, Tackelly made a review application concerning the adjudicator’s determination – on 16 December 2024, Reward alleged that the review adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the application had not been served within one day of lodging in accordance with s 42(3) of the SOP Act – in January 2025, the review adjudicator accepted Reward’s submission that he lacked jurisdiction to determine the review application – while the primary judge held that the original adjudicator did not make a jurisdictional error in respect to the release of performance securities, her Honour determined that the review adjudicator erroneously found that he lacked jurisdiction due to late service – whether the primary judge erred in finding that strict compliance with the one-day timeframe in s 43(2) of the SOP Act was not a precondition to jurisdiction of a review adjudicator – whether the primary judge erred in finding that satisfaction of Tackelly's requirement to "give a copy of [its adjudication review] application" under s 42(3) of the SOP Act was not a jurisdictional precondition to the review adjudicator's power to consider Tackelly's application – whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the review adjudicator erroneously found that he lacked jurisdiction and this constituted a jurisdictional error – whether the primary judge should have found that the review adjudicator was correct in his decision to not determine the application.

Tackelly No 8 Pty Ltd as trustee for Tackelly No 8 Trust v Reward Interiors Pty Ltd t/as Reward Group [2025] NSWSC 300

Tackelly No 8 Pty Ltd as trustee for Tackelly No 8 Trust v Reward Interiors Pty Ltd t/as Reward Group (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 545