(3) “it is enough that he made it clear that he had considered all of the documents and submissions supplied by the Defendant… and that he had considered those contra-charges and rejected this”10. It is not easy to establish a breach of natural justice in the circunstances. Contentions related to the 3rd argument were interesting. The adjudicator was alleged to have breached the rules of natural justice for the failure to disclose or order Vinci to disclose, the decision of a previous adjudication between Vinci and another sub-contractor. That decision would have shown an inconsistent position taken by Vinci in the current case. The court drew a conclusion that there was no evidence to show an inconsistency and the adjudicator was not requested to order a disclosure of the document. The result might have been different if the adjudicator was expressly requested to exercise this power and he refused to do it. North Australia Inpex Operations Australia Pty Ltd v JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory quashed an adjudicator’s decision under the North Australia’s Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act 2004 on the grounds that there had been a substantial denial of natural justice. The key aspect of this case was about s.20 of the North Australia’s Act: “The provisions in the Schedule, Division 5 about the following matters are implied in the construction contract that does not have a written provision about the matter: (a) when and how a party must respond to a payment claim made by another party; (b) by when a payment must be made.” Schedule, Division 5 relates to response to
payment claims, in particular clause 6(2) provides: “The party must: (a) within 14 days after receiving the payment claim: (i) give the claimant a notice of dispute; and (ii) if the party disputes part of the claim – pay the amount of the claim that is not disputed; or (b) within 28 days after receiving the payment claim, pay the whole of the amount of the claim.” The adjudicator found uncertainty in the payment terms of the contract and sought the parties’ submissions about this. Furthermore, the adjudicator asked the parties the question as to whether the implied provisions under s.20 should or should not be imported into the contract because of the uncertainty. Despite