The High Court held by unanimous joint judgment that the reference in section 13(1) of the SOP Act to a "person referred to in s 8(1) who is or who claims to be entitled to a progress payment" required the existence of a reference date under a construction contract, and within the meaning of section 8(1), as a precondition to the making of a valid payment claim – the status quo was restored. If a reference date was not available, any purported payment claim would be void. The Shade Systems decision confirms that adjudication determinations made under the SOP Act may only be subject to judicial review when it is established that an adjudication determination is affected by a jurisdictional error of law. The decision provides a higher level of certainty for the building and construction industry by confirming that the scope for a Court to review adjudication determinations made under the SOP Act is confined to circumstances of jurisdictional error only. It is anticipated that this decision will be viewed positively by the building and construction industry and alleviate initial concerns of an increase in the number of adjudication determinations subject to nonjurisdictional error of law challenges. Confining the bases of challenge to jurisdictional errors of law only, may result in a decrease in applications to set aside adjudication determinations. An Adjudicator will commit jurisdictional error when he or she purports to exercise a power beyond the power given to the Adjudicator under the SOP Act, or if an Adjudicator fails to comply with the "basic and essential requirements" of the SOP Act. For example, it would be a jurisdictional error for an Adjudicator to make a determination on the basis of materials not put before him or her by the parties. Conversely, nonjurisdictional errors of law refer to situations where an Adjudicator may make an error in interpreting the facts or law presented in the materials. For example, the misinterpretation of a time bar provision in a construction contract would be a nonjurisdictional error and not challengeable. The decision confirms that the scope for the Court to review adjudication determinations made under the SOP Act is confined to circumstances of jurisdictional error only. What this means for you By way of general reminder and incorporating some of the lessons learnt from Southern Han and Shade Systems: ● the existence of a reference date under a construction contract is a necessary precondition to the making of a valid payment claim. A Claimant should be confident that a reference date exists under its contract before bringing an adjudication application and should make submissions about it ● parties making payment claims should ensure that only one payment claim is submitted for each reference date in compliance with the Act ● no early payment claims – payment claims can only be made on and from reference dates ● where a dispute arises under a construction contract and a party contemplates suspension or termination, the timing of any proposed action should be considered in conjunction with the timeframes for reference dates arising under a construction contract ● the scope for the Court to review adjudication determinations made under the SOP Act is confined to circumstances of jurisdictional error only. An aggrieved party cannot seek to judicially review an Adjudicator's determination if the Adjudicator simply gets it wrong in fact or at law. This article first appeared in Lexology. See the original article here.