Background
Woonona-Bulli RSL Memorial Club Ltd engaged Warrane – Design Construct Fit-Out Pty Ltd to design a refurbishment masterplan and later to construct a carpark under a costs-plus contract. In October 2025, Warrane obtained an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) for $2,912,491.25 plus costs. The Club did not challenge the determination. Warrane then obtained judgment for $3,026,967.85.
The Club sought to stay enforcement of that judgment until its related substantive proceedings were resolved. Those proceedings included claims concerning alleged misleading or deceptive conduct, defective work, delay, variations and asbestos-related delay costs. The Club said payment would be catastrophic to its continued existence.
The Court’s Holding
Peden J dismissed the stay application with costs. The Club had not discharged the heavy onus of showing that the interests of justice required a stay of a judgment founded on a SOPA adjudication.
The Court found that the Club had not established catastrophic consequences from enforcement. Its accounts showed net assets exceeding $14 million, and evidence indicated its land was worth about $19.2 million, alongside plant, equipment, gaming machines and licences. The Club had not shown that asset sales, financing or further borrowing were unavailable. There was also no evidence that Warrane was insolvent or could not repay any overpayment if the Club later succeeded.
The Court declined to assess the strength of the Club’s complex, contested substantive claims on an interlocutory application. Unlike the homeowner in Black Label Developments Pty Ltd v McMenemy, the Club did not challenge the validity of the construction contract underpinning the adjudication. The balance of convenience also favoured Warrane, including because the Club delayed seeking a stay until February 2026 after judgment had been entered in November 2025, while non-payment was affecting Warrane’s cashflow.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking to stay a SOPA judgment bears a heavy burden to show that a stay is required in the interests of justice.
- Assertions that enforcement will be catastrophic must be supported by persuasive evidence of an inability to realise assets or obtain funding.
- The absence of evidence that the successful claimant is insolvent weighs against a stay where repayment could be required after final resolution.
- Unexplained delay in applying for a stay can materially weigh against the applicant.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the strong practical effect of SOPA adjudication judgments: an unsuccessful principal will not obtain a stay merely because its underlying contractual and statutory claims remain unresolved. The court will assess the actual financial evidence, the risk of irreparable prejudice and the particular balance of convenience.
For construction principals, the case highlights the need to move promptly and substantiate any claimed inability to pay. For contractors, it confirms that cashflow prejudice and delay by the judgment debtor remain significant considerations when resisting a stay.