NRW has won its case over pay against Samsung C&T and its work at the Roy Hill iron ore mine.
The contractor faced off against Samsung C&T yesterday in relation to outstanding payments for rail earthworks and drainage works along 320 kilometres of rail between Port Hedland and the mine.
According to court documents, the two parties are in dispute as to whether and when Practical Completion of the Subcontract Works was achieved. NRW contends that Practical Completion was achieved on 24 April 2015, and that the Date for Practical Completion was extended to that time.
However, no Certificate of Practical Completion had been issued.
“On 30 April 2015, NRW submitted Progress Claim No 21. Included in the claim was a claim for $10,280,381.99 for '[r]emeasurement of the light vehicle road', $4,033,504.64 for batter trimming and $2,678,284.66 for constructing drains in rock. The total amount claimed in Progress Claim No 21 was $91,560,968.45,” the documents stated.
“On 10 May 2015, Samsung issued a Progress Certificate assessing the value of work done in April at $3,744,521.79. That amount was set off against an amount claimed for flights and accommodation, so that the Progress Certificate was for a zero amount.
“On 27 May 2015, NRW made an adjudication application under the Act for determination of the payment dispute which NRW contended had arisen in relation to Progress Claim No 21.
“In the Determination of 1 July 2015, the adjudicator determined that Samsung must pay NRW the amounts claimed for the light vehicle road and batter trimming, as well as $2,675,342.77 for constructing drains in rock and $478,654.69 in respect of rail service track maintenance. The determination was that Samsung pay NRW $17,467,884 plus GST by no later than 5.00 pm on 8 July 2015. The rail service maintenance decision is not separately challenged in these proceedings.”
However Samsung has fought these claims since that time.
Now the WA Supreme Court yesterday declared Samsung should pay NRW $17, 467, 884, and return the insurance bond to the contractor.
In coming to the decision, the court used the same reason it did in the case of Samsung C&T against Laing O’Rourke.