Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
Australian Maritime Law
Martin Davies *
CASES
1. Birdon Pty Ltd v Houben Marine Pty Ltd1
Constitutional law—infringement of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia—interlocutory injunction to restrain adjudication proceedings
The plaintiff chartered a back hoe dredge from the defendant. A dispute arose between the parties about payment of hire. The plaintiff instituted proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia seeking a declaration that it had no further obligation to pay hire to the defendant, and seeking repayment of hire payments previously made by reason of the defendant’s misleading and deceptive conduct relating to the dredge. The defendant claimed that it had a statutory right to progress payments from the plaintiff under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the “Security of Payment Act”) because the back hoe dredge had been used in a construction project and, thus, that the charterparty was a “construction contract” as defined in that Act. The defendant commenced adjudication proceedings pursuant to the Security of Payment Act. The plaintiff contended that the case gave rise to a matter involving the Australian Constitution because the adjudication proceedings under the Security of Payment Act impinged on the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. The judge at first instance, Rares J, granted an interim injunction to restrain the adjudication proceedings and stated a special case for a Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.
Decision (by a majority of two to one, Rares J dissenting): The Security of Payment Act is not inconsistent with the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia; there was therefore no reason not to dissolve the interim injunction restraining the adjudication proceedings.
Held: (1) The Security of Payment Act makes provision for a procedure by which a construction contractor may apply for progress payments in respect of a construction contract, whether or not the contract itself provides for such payments. If the respondent does not agree to make the progress payments, an adjudicator may be appointed, who may issue an adjudication certificate requiring the respondent to pay the adjudicated amount. The Security of Payment Act, s.25 provides that the adjudication certificate may be filed and enforced as a judgment debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) There was nothing about the enforcement of the adjudication certificate as if it were a judgment of the court that was at odds with the fundamentals of the judicial process. The
* Admiralty Law Institute Professor of Maritime Law, Tulane University Law School; Director, Tulane Maritime Law Center; Professorial Fellow, The University of Melbourne.
1. (2011) 197 FCR 25; 283 ALR 39.
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW YEARBOOK
2