The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision granting the respondent's request for prompt payment under the Construction Act.
The adjudicator found jurisdiction on the basis that the contract was not completed because more than 1% of the contract price was owing.
The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the adjudicator was plainly wrong in law, as 'price of completion' under s. 2(3) of the Act refers to the value of uncompleted work, not the quantum of disputed payment claims.
The matter was remitted for a fresh determination before a different adjudicator.
