High Court rejects review of SOP Act adjudication determinations for non-jurisdictional error The High Court of Australia has held that courts do not have the power to review adjudication determinations made under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the SOP Act) for non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record. The High Court affirmed the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal that the availability of judicial review to quash an adjudication determination under the Act was limited to cases of jurisdictional error. Only the second occasion on which the High Court has considered the SOP Act, Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd [2018] HCA 4 represents a key decision in SOP Act jurisprudence in that it finally resolves recent uncertainty as to the availability of judicial review of adjudication determinations. In a separate decision released at the same time as Probuild, the High Court also determined that judicial review is limited to cases of jurisdictional error under the South Australian Security of Payment legislation. Analysis Prior to 2010, the commonly accepted position in NSW was that the SOP Act precluded judicial review except where an adjudication determination failed to comply with certain "basic and essential requirements" of the SOP Act. This was the position stated in the Court of Appeal's decision in 2004 in Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport [2004] 61 NSWLR 421. That position changed in 2010 when the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal in Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries [2010] NSWCA 190 (Chase Oyster Bar). Chase Oyster Bar removed any doubt that the Supreme Court could at least quash a determination which was infected with jurisdictional error, that is an error which goes to the authority or power of the decision maker (in this case, a SOP Act adjudicator) to make his or her decision. However, the decision in Chase Oyster Bar did not determine whether review might be available for non-jurisdictional errors of law on the face of the record. This is the question now determined by Probuild, namely whether the Court's power under section 69(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) to quash a determination for a non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record was available in the case of SOP Act adjudications determinations or whether Parliament had intended that it be excluded. Following a detailed consideration of the regime created by the SOP Act, the Court found that the SOP Act should be understood to exclude review for non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record.