Amcor Pty Ltd v Alphington Developments Pty Ltd [2025] HCADisp 155

Last month we reported on the Victorian Court of Appeal decision in Alphington Developments Pty Ltd v Amcor Pty Ltd [2025] VSCA 48 (see here).

The High Court has since rejected a special leave application made by Amcor (Amcor Pty Ltd v Alphington Developments Pty Ltd [2025] HCADisp 155), noting that any appeal would turn on the particular terms of the contract rather than the operation of principles of contractual interpretation. The Court also found that an appeal would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success.

Accordingly, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s interpretation of what follows from the failure of contractual machinery in a contract stands. The matter will be remitted to the Supreme Court for determination.

The special leave decision can be found here.

Qube RE Services (No.2) Pty Ltd v Martinus Rail Pty Ltd [2025] HCADisp 171; [2025] HCADisp 172

The decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Martinus Rail Pty Ltd v Qube RE Services (No.2) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 49 was the subject of our April update (see here).

The High Court recently rejected the special leave application made by Qube (Qube RE Services (No.2) Pty Ltd v Martinus Rail Pty Ltd [2025] HCADisp 171; [2025] HCADisp 172), noting that an appeal would not have sufficient prospects of success, nor would it raise any question of law of general application or public importance.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal’s requirement of a high threshold for establishing jurisdictional error in a determination by an adjudicator will accordingly apply under the State’s statutory security of payments regime.

The special leave dispositions can be found here and here.