Home   About us   About ADR   NADR Services   Publications
  Forms   Members   Forums   Links   NMA
• Adjudication
• Adjudication Federal Australia
• Adjudication Law Reports
• Adjudication Law Reports 1999
• Adjudication Law Reports 2000
• Adjudication Law Reports 2001
• Adjudication Law Reports 2002
• Adjudication Law Reports 2003
• Adjudication Law Reports 2004
• Adjudication Law Reports 2005
• Adjudication Law Reports 2006
• Adjudication Law Reports 2007
• Adjudication Law Reports 2008
• Adjudication Law Reports Index
• Adjudication New South Wales
• Adjudication New Zealand
• Adjudication Northern Territory
• Adjudication Queensland
• Adjudication Singapore
• Adjudication South Australia
• Adjudication Tasmania
• Adjudication Victoria
• Adjudication Western Australia
• ADR Law Reports
• ADR Law Reports 1997
• ADR Law Reports 1998
• ADR Law Reports 1999
• ADR Law Reports 2000
• ADR Law Reports 2001
• ADR Law Reports 2002
• ADR Law Reports 2003
• ADR Law Reports 2004
• ADR Law Reports 2005
• ADR Law Reports 2006
• ADR Law Reports 2007
• ADR Law Reports 2008
• ADR Law Reports Index
• Alernative Dispute Resolution
• Arbitration
• Arbitration Law Reports 1996
• Arbitration Law Reports 1997
• Arbitration Law Reports 1998
• Arbitration Law Reports 1999
• Arbitration Law Reports 2000
• Arbitration Law Reports 2001
• Arbitration Law Reports 2002
• Arbitration Law Reports 2003
• Arbitration Law Reports 2004
• Arbitration Law Reports 2005
• Arbitration Law Reports 2006
• Arbitration Law Reports 2007
• Arbitration Law Reports 2008
• Arbitration Law Reports Index
• Arbitration Older Reports
• Banking
• Commercial Law Reports 1997
• Commercial Law Reports 1998
• Commercial Law Reports 1999
• Commercial Law Reports 2000
• Commercial Law Reports 2001
• Commercial Law Reports 2002
• Commercial Law Reports 2003
• Commercial Law Reports 2004
• Commercial Law Reports 2005
• Commercial Law Reports 2006
• Commercial Law Reports 2007
• Commercial Law Reports 2008
• Commercial Law Reports Index
• Conflicts of Law
• Constitution Law Reports
• Constitutional Law
• Construction
• Construction Law Reports
• Construction Law Reports 2000
• Construction Law Reports 2001
• Construction Law Reports 2002
• Construction Law Reports 2003
• Construction Law Reports 2004
• Construction Law Reports 2005
• Construction Law Reports 2006
• Construction Law Reports 2007
• Construction Law Reports 2008
• Construction Law Reports Index
• Dispute Review Boards
• Education
• Employment
• Intellectual Property
• Legal Research
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Mediation
• Medical
• Private International Law
• Public International Law
• Public Law
• Shipping & Trade
• Sports Law
• Who's Who



View a printer friendly version of this page.
1 Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004
Text of the Queensland, Australian Construction Act as of 30th September 2005
by Queensland Legislature

2 Building and Construction Industry Payments Regulation 2004
Text of Queensland Regulation 2004
by Queensland Legislature

Queensland : Australia. Construction Adjudication Cases in reverse date order starting with the most recent case. 4th August 2008.
by Corbett Haselgrove Spurin

Queensland : Australia : Adjudication cases indexed aphabetically by citation, with short description of content. 4th August 2008
by Corbett Haselgrove Spurin

Queensland : Australia : Adjudication cases indexed by subject, with citation & short description of content. 4th August 2008
by Corbett Haselgrove Spurin

Abel Point Marina (Whitsundays) P/L v Thomas Uher & Sea-Slip Marinas (Aust) P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 10/11
BCISPA application for JR. where adjudicator did not provide an opportunity to provide further information ? whether adjudicator bound to follow procedures set out in the Act ? whetherer a breach of natural justice / error of law ? whether sufficient evidence or other material to justify adjudicator?s decision ? whether the adjudicator made a decision in relation to a jurisdictional fact. Supreme Court, Brisbane. 11th October 2006.
by Wilson J.

Abelpoint v O Brien [2007] Adj.L.R. 04/19
Application for judicial review of decision of adjudicator made under BCISPA 2004 ? where contractor?s claim for costs of delay or disruption allowed by adjudicator. [2007] QSC 91. 19th April 2007.
by Mullins J :

Altys Multi-Services P/L v Grandview Modular Building Systems P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 02/21
Judicial review – pro and con. Judicial review of adjudication under BCISPA 2004; Disadvantages in review procedure ; preferability of curial litigation. QSC. Brisbane : 21st February 2008
by ACTING JUSTICE SKOIEN: QSC. Brisbane : 21st February 2008

Auscoast Builders P/L v Mark Jason Smith t/as Mainline Tiling & Paving Contractors [2007] Adj.L.R. 07/23
Claim for refund of money - paid under compulsion of adjudication under BCISPA 2004 – no express agreement about rate of charge – reasonable fee implied – interest and costs. Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Brisbane 23rd July 2007.
by Mr D P Morzone

Bezzina Developers P/L v Deemah Stone (Qld) P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 08/01
Where s 27 BCISPA 2004 requires that where a subsequent adjudication occurs in which work is valued that was valued in a previous adjudication, the adjudicator must use the same value unless the claimant or respondent satisfies the adjudicator concerned that the value of the work has changed since the previous decision – where neither the appellant or the first respondent informed the second respondent that the third respondent had valued work the subject of the second respondent’s adjudication – whether in the context of the statute as a whole, the adjudicator is obliged to take into account an earlier adjudication only where the adjudicator is informed of the earlier adjudication decision. CA 1st August 2008
by McMurdo P, Keane JA and Fraser JA

Bezzina Developers P/L v Deemah Stone P/L; Max Tonkin; Helen Durham [2007] Adj.L.R. 10/08
Application for judicial review of decision of adjudicator made under BCISPA 2004 (Qld) - whether parties were parties to a construction contract - whether adjudicator had valued work done under the construction contract - where second adjudicator failed to take into account s. 27 of the Act and its effect on his obligation to value the work which was the subject of the payment claim before him by giving it the same value as that previously decided in an earlier adjudication application - because of failure to apply s. 27, refusal of relief under s. 100 not appropriate- necessary extension of time under s. 26 of the JR Act granted for the making of a statutory order of review. 8th October 2007
by Douglas J.

Blackbird Energy P/L v Henrikus Ruthergus Johonus Venbeelen t/a H&K Concreting & Construction [2007] Adj.L.R. 03/02
Where the respondent obtained interim judgment in the District Court under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) - where issues between parties subsequently resolved in a common law proceeding - where interim decision subject to appeal permanently stayed - whether appeal should proceed where issues on appeal purely hypothetical - whether appeal should proceed in relation to costs of interim judgment only. Court of Appeal. Supreme Court of Queensland. Brisbane. 2nd March 2007
by Williams JJa, Keane JJA, Helman J.

BMD Major Projects P/L v Wagstaff Piling P/L & Karyn Reardon [2005] Adj.L.R. 06/07
Jurisdiction on jurisdiction : Application for declaration that there was no contract between the parties and that the payment claim was invalid. Whilst accepting that the applicant had a strong case, it was for the adjudicator to determine these issues. If unhappy with the outcome further litigation is permitted. QSC, Brisbane. 7th June 2005.
by Phillipides J

Brehmer Bricklaying P/L v Ampcorp P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 05/25
Jurisdiction : Claim for outstanding sums in respect of supply of goods and bricklaying services. Held : Joint jurisdiction between majistrates court and Tribunal. District Court. 25th May 2007.
by McGill DCJ.

Cant Contracting P/L v Con & Michelle Lyndsay Casella [2006] Adj.L.R. 09/01
Building, engineering & related contracts ? Remuneration ? recovery on quantum meruit : General statutory right of debt recovery under s 19 BCISPA 2004 (Qld) ? where no payment schedule delivered ? unlicensed builder ? whether statutory right of recovery is qualified by s 42 Queensland BSAA 1991. Supreme Court Queensland at Brisbane, 1st September 2006
by His Honour de Jersey CJ

Cant Contracting P/L v Con & Michelle Lyndsay Casella [2006] Adj.L.R. 12/15
Council issued a stop work order ? pursuant to the BCISPA 2004 (Qld): respondent sought progress payments by way of a payment claim ? appellants did not serve a corresponding payment schedule on the respondent ? summary judgment was awarded against the appellants ? If respondent did not hold an appropriate licence at the time construction was carried out ? was summary judgement enforceable? 15th December 2006.
by Williams and Jerrard JJA and Philip McMurdo J.

CBQ P/L v Russell Welsh & Ian Hammett Electrical P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 06/19
Administrative Law ? Statutory Review : Where applicant sought a review of adjudication of the BCIPA 2004 (Qld) ? where contract concluded before 1st October 2004 ? where written contract after 1st October 2004. Supreme Court of Queensland at Townsville. 19th June 2006.
by Cullinane J.

Chowhan, S.R. v Coral Homes P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 06/30
Outstanding balance on contract price. Application to recover the balance of a contract price relating to the construction of a domestic dwelling. Commercial Consumer Tribunal Queensland. 30th June 2006
by Mr A.J.Moon.

Construct Assist P/L v PDMS Group P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/18
Claim under a “construction contract” – BCIPA 2004 – payment claim served by claimant by pre-paid post to respondent’s principal place of business – no payment schedule served by respondent in reply – whether respondent entitled to resist summary judgment application. 18th December 2008.
by Tutt DCJ

Covecorp Constructions PIL v Indigo Projects PIL [2007] Adj.L.R. 09/19
Construction claim : where defendant/applicant sought security for costs – where order for security for costs previously made – where effective delayin making application – whether application amounted to an application to vary a previous order – whether UCPR 675 satisfied – whether counterclaims have effect on quantum ordered for security – whether order should be made. 19th September 2007
by Martin J;

Daysea P/L v Watpac Australia P/L [2001] Adj.L.R. 01/23
Construction of contract - implied conditions ? progress claim - where principal's representative issued payment certificate after the specified 14 day period but within 28 days - whether appellant liable to pay balance in accordance with payment certificate - construction of clause 42.1 of AS 4300-1995 - a payment certificate issued outside the 14 day period is a nullity. Court of Appeal : Supreme Court of Queensland. 23rd February 2001.
by Davies JA, Williams JA, Mackenzie J :

Development Dynamics (Queensland) v Davies Projects P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 06/08
Enforcement : Court held that the applicant had no right to submit a payment claim - so despite the failure of the employer to issue a payment schedule the decision was not enforceable. District Court. Queensland at Brisbane. 8th June 2007.
by Rackemann J.

Doolan (Sandra & Stephen)v Rubikcon (Qld) P/L : Ian Hillman : Australian Solutions Ctr P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 07/10
Contracts – Building, engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Adjudicator ordered payment of money claimed in two identical claims – Identical claims not allowed under act – No jurisdiction to decide claims – Order invalid. 10th July 2007
by Fryberg J.

Ed Ahern Plumbing P/L v J M Kelly P/L : Toga Dev. No31 P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 05/03
Subcontractors Charges Act 1974. Where notice of claim of charge :- referred to annexed statement of account showing calculation of the amount claimed by the subcontractor : served without annexed statement of account : as served was the notice to be considered for the purpose of determining whether the notice was valid : lacked particulars of the amount claimed : Where money sought to be charged by subcontractor and amount of subcontractor's claim ascertainable with reasonable certainty from notice of claim of charge without annexure : Where validity of notice of claim of charge not affected by want of form-: Where proceeding not commenced within statutory time period - where charge extinguished. 3rd May 2007
by Mullins J.

F K Gardner & Sons P/L v Dimin P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 09/01
Contracts : Building, engineering & related contracts : Other matters :- Whether applicant is a person to whom s 17 of the BCIPA (Qld) (2004) applies. Supreme Court of Queensland. Brisbane. 1st September 2006.
by Lyons J.

G W Enterprises P/L v Xentex Industries P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 12/20
J.R. Jurisdictional Matters ? whether the adjudicator failed in his duty to afford natural justice and acted without jurisdiction. Error of Law ? whether the adjudicator?s decision is void or voidable due to an error of law. Brisbane. 20th December 2006
by Lyons J.

Gemini Nominees P/L v Queensland Property Partners P/L ATF The Keith Batt Family Trust [2007] Adj.L.R. 02/13
Builder & owner entered into a written cost plus contract for renovation works to house property ?payment claim served by builder under BCISPA 2004 ? where owner did not serve payment schedule ? no fair and reasonable estimate of total amount builder was likely to receive under the contract given to owner pursuant to s 55 DBCA 2000 ? whether contract unenforceable under s 55(3) DBCA 2000 (Qld) is a contract to which BCISPA 2004 (Qld) applies. 13th February 2007.
by Mullins J.

Greg Beer t/a G & L Beer Covercreting v J M Kelly (Project Builders) P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 02/29
Interpretation : where the appellant carried out works for the respondent under a licence class “Painting and Decorating” –where a condition restricted the licence to “residential spray on painting” – construction of s 42(1) Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) – whether “licence of the appropriate class” can be read subject to any work-restrictive condition on a licence – limitations of the power of the court when construing a statute, to interfere with the language chosen by the legislature. whether s 30(3) Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld) authorised the creation of a class of licence of “painting and decorating restricted to residential spray on painting” – whether, alternatively s 29 of Sch 1 of Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 1992 allowed the creation of the specific class of “painting and decorating restricted to residential spray on painting.” CA. 29th February 2008
by Holmes JJA, Muir JJA, Mackenzie AJA.

Greg Beer t/a G & L Beer Covercreting v J M Kelly (Project Builders) P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/11
Costs : Where the respondent opposes the costs orders proposed in the reasons - where the respondent sought to uphold orders of the primary judge which were found to be erroneous - whether costs of the appeal should be costs in the cause or should be reserved pending the outcome of District Court proceedings - where grounds in the notice of contention were left undecided - where the grounds will be determined in the District Court - whether there should be an order as to costs at first instance. CA. 11th April 2008
by Holmes and Muir JJA and Mackenzie AJA

Greg Beer T/as G & L Beer Covercreting & J. M. Kelly (Project Builders) P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 10/22
Licence - construction. BCISPA 2004 : Construction of “licence of the appropriate class” in s 42 of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 – whether read subject to restrictive conditions. D.C. Brisbane 22 October 2007
by Martin DCJ

Greg Kern & Co Pty Ltd ATF The Tiffany Trust v Building & Civil Contractors P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 03/30
Tribunal decision - construction dispute : Appeal on point of law for asserted failure to consider application for security. District Court of Queensland. Brisbane. 30th March 2007
by Judge Brabazon QC.

Grey, Alan William v Little, Alexander & Marlene [2005] Adj.L.R. 12/14
Quantum Meruit : Money claimed under a domestic building contract or quantum meruit ? formation of contract - nature and extent of contract - Scope of works and variations - standard of work ? time to complete defective work ? breach of condition or warranty ? termination ? early possession ? enclosed stage - damages ? interest - costs. Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Brisbane. 14th December 2005.
by Mr D Morzone.

Haggarty Group P/L v Harmony Property Group P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 01/25
Whether Tribunal a Court for the purposes of the BCISPA 2004. 25th January 2006.
by Mr A Moon.

Henderickus Ruthergus Johonus Vanbeelen t/a Concreting & Construction v Blackbird Energy P/L [2006] Adj.L.R.06/23
Building contracts ? remuneration ? progress claim. Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 ss 17,18, 80 and 100 - Whether posting to a post office box was a posting to a place of business. District Court of Queensland, Brisbane. 23rd June 2006.
by Judge Brabazon QC.

Hervey Bay (JV) P/L v Civil Mining & Construction P/L; William Timothy Sullivan; I A M. [2008] Adj.L.R. 05/07
Application to determine the correct sum due where adjudicators decision previously set aside by the court. The court declined since there were on-going disputes as to what was due. Supreme Court of Queensland, Brisbane. 7th May 2008.
by McMurdo J.

Hervey Bay (JV) P/L v Civil Mining and Construction P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/14
Payments – appeal from decision of an adjudicator – validity of a decision about entitlement to a progress payment – entitlement to progress payment where no extension of time was claimed : entitlement to progress payments – entitlement to delay costs – where parties have modified the standard conditions of contract– entitlement to extensions of time – power of Superintendent to grant extensions of time – effect of modification of the standard terms upon the powers of the Superintendent. Supreme Court of Queensland. Brisbane. 14th April 2008
by McMurdo J.

Hitachi Ltd v O\'Donnell Griffin P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 06/17
Adjudication considered selected larger variation claims but not numerous small claims – where applicant/respondent sought an order that adjudication decision was void – whether having regard to legislative intent, s 26 Payments Act requires an adjudicator to examine each and every variation in a large claim – whether the adjudicator acted bona fides – whether the adjudicator observed procedural fairness. Whether same dispute before subsequent adjudicator. Supreme Court, Queensland at Brisbane. 17th June 2008
by Justice Skoien:

Hulin (Krinstine) v Bill Qui Constructions P/L & Ton Phieu Qui [2007] Adj.L.R. 04/30
Jurisdiction : Claim for nuisance caused by neighhbours construction works : Held : Court not tribunal has jurisdiction. Brisbane. 30th April 2007
by Wilson J.

Impulse Electrical (Aust) P/L v Mother Natures Chermside P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 03/02
Successful application for summary enforcement of amended second stage payment with revised / varied contract price. District Court. Brisbane. 2nd March 2007.
by Forde DCJ.

Intero Hospitality Projects P/L v Empire Interior (Australia) P/L & Peter James Hanlon [2007] ADJ.L.R. 08/23
Error of Law : Adjudicator determined that the relevant construction contract was the first contract concluded and that a subsequent contract did not count because it was induced by duress. If this was an error - as seems likely - it is an error adjudicator entitled to make. Any challenge must be through s100 litigation proceedings. In the meantime decision enforceable. Trial Division. Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane. 23rd August 2007.
by de Jersey CJ.

Intero Hospitality Projects PIL v Empire Interior (Australia) PIL & Peter James Hanlon [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/11
Judicial review : governing contract. Where the second respondent adjudicator made a decision under the BCISPA 2004 – where the primary judge dismissed the applicant’s application for a statutory order of review of the decision – where the underlying object of the BCISPA 2004 is to provide a mechanism for swift interim adjudications – where the court may dismiss an application for judicial review where it would be “inappropriate” to grant the application under s 48 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) – whether the application for leave to appeal under s 13(b) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) should be dismissed. ) – where there was a dispute between the parties as to which document formed the basis of their agreement – where the adjudicator found that the earlier agreement governed the parties, as the later subcontract was signed under duress – whether the adjudicator was capable of maintaining a finding of common law duress. CA. Brisbane 11th April 2008
by Holmes and Muir JJA and Chesterman J

J Hutchinson P/L v Galform P/L ; RICS DRS ; Russell Welsh [2008] Adj.L.R. 08/21
Whether the second payment claim, adjudication application and adjudication were an abuse of process. Supreme Court of Queensland, Trial Division, Brisbane. 21st August 2008
by Chesterman J

J J McDonald v Neil Gall : RICS Dispute Resolution Service QLD : CEPM P/L [2005] Adj.L.R. 10/17
Application for judicial review. 2 : 1, whether the decision sought to be reviewed was a decision of an administrative character made under an enactment. 2, the propriety of the decision pursuant to s23 of the BCISPA 2004. Held : If there was an error of law, it was one the adjudicator was entitled to make. Application failed. Supreme Court of Queensland. Brisbane. 17th October 2005.
by HHJ Dutney :

Jag Interiors P/L v A-Trane Plumbing P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 06/05
Jurisdiction – claim for restitution – Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 – section 100. Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Brisbane 5th June 2008

JM Kelly (Project Builders) P/L v Toga Development No 31 P/L & Suters Architects P/L (No. 2) [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/01
Application for summary judgment against the 1st defendant in respect of money said to be owing under payment certificates for building work completed – an issue between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is which of two agreements evidences their contract – both agreements include identical clauses regarding payment certificates – whether summary judgment should be entered for the plaintiff. 1st December 2008
by Daubney J

JM Kelly (Project Builders) P/L v Toga Development No 31 P/L No1 [2008] Adj.L.R. 12/01
2nd defendant applied under r 171 of the UCPR for the further amended statement of claim of the plaintiff to be struck out – numerous bases are nominated by the second defendant to justify the strike out – whether the claim for compensation in equity against the 2nd defendant should be struck out – whether the claims under the TPA against the 2nd defendant should be struck out – whether the claim against the 2nd defendant for damages for non-payment of progress payments should be struck out because the plaintiff also has a contractual claim against the first defendant or because the damages are too remote. Equity : 2nd defendant was the superintendent under a building project, of which the plaintiff was the builder – whether the 2nd defendant owes fiduciary duties to the plaintiff because of that relationship. 1st December 2008
by Daubney J.

John & Lee Ann Cavanah v Advance Earthmoving & Haulage P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/18
Bankruptcy notice – set aside – judgment upon which the notice was founded was not a final judgment – counter-claim – set-off or cross-demand. Federal Magistrates Court of Australia at Brisbane. 18th April 2008
by Burnett FM.

Kjerulf David Ainsworth v R J Neller Building P/L & Philip Martin [2008] Adj.L.R. 11/03
Uniform Civil Procedure rules r 5, r 165, r 171, r 280, r 483 re BCISPA Act 2004 s 3 - separate determination that plaintiff a \"resident owner\" for purposes of the Act (being upon defendant builder\'s entitlement to bring a payment claim before an adjudicator) - argument that a person ordinarily resident elsewhere could not qualify rejected - plaintiff\'s claims for declaration that nothing owed to builder (notwithstanding adjudicator\'s unsatisfied awards in its favour) and for damages for alleged deficiencies in the work sought to be struck out or permanently stayed - grounds for defendant\'s application included that plaintiff\'s expert report foreshadowed in the pleading identifying unsatisfactory work as other particulars of it, were not forthcoming, plaintiff had \"gutted\" the premises so that while his experts had had access to them to examine the work, there was now nothing for the defendant\'s expert to see - plaintiff refused to allow defendant\'s people access to premises within 7 day period nominated in court\'s order, although offering access two days later. District Court, Queensland, Brisbane. 3rd November 2008
by Judge Robin QC.

KNJ P/L v Dare Sutton Clarke P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 04/11
Challenge to enforcement judgment : Asserted that admissions in court were incorrect and sought to introduce these as additional grounds for appeal where original challenge failed. Held : NO grounds to resist enforcement.: Court of Appeal. Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane. 11th April 2006.
by Williams JA.

Marshall, B. v Stimson, S. t/a SAS Roofing [2008] Adj.L.R. 01/16
Non-payment. Building dispute – defective roofing works – non-payment of contract price – effect of adjudicator’s decision pursuant to the BCISPA 2004. Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Brisbane. 16 January 2008.
by Ms C Heyworth-Smith.

Melco Engineering P/L v Eriez Magnetics P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 08/02
UCPR r.166 – where contractual dispute as to terms and performance of contract – where respondent alleges applicant has not complied with r.166 (4) UCPR – whether applicant is deemed to have admitted facts pursuant to r.166 (5) UCPR – whether applicant must re-plead facts to comply with r.166 (4) UCPR. 30th July 2007
by Dutney J.

Minimax Fire Fighting Systems P/L v Bremore Engineering (WA P/L) [2007] Adj.L.R. 11/14
Payment schedule - validity. Where the first respondent sent the applicant an invoice for building work completed – where the applicant sent an email to the first respondent refusing to accept the invoice and suggesting the parties meet to discuss the claim and amount payable – where in response the first respondent applied under s21 BCISPA 2004 for an adjudication of the dispute – where the second respondent was appointed as adjudicator – where the applicant argued that the appointment was precluded on the grounds that the applicant had issued a payment schedule to the first respondent as defined under the Act – whether the applicant’s email constituted a payment schedule under s18 of the Act – whether the second respondent should have granted the applicant an opportunity to make submissions regarding the nature of the email.
Where the court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal was founded under Part 3 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) – where under ss13 and 48 the court could dismiss an application for review if the applicant was afforded an opportunity for review by another court, tribunal, authority or person, or if the interests of justice made it appropriate to do so – whether the mechanisms available to the applicant under s100 BCISPA 2004 enlivened the power granted under ss13 and 48. SCQ Brisbane 14 November 2007
by Chesterman J.

Mitchell (Bruce Joseph) v Pacific Dawn P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 08/18
Outstanding progress payments : Settlement Agreement : Undue influence : Economic Duress. Supreme Court of Queensland. Brisbane. Trial Division. 18th August 2006
by Chesterman J.

Mitchell v Pacific Dawn P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 03/16
Where plaintiffs pleadings alleged duress, illegitimate pressure and unconscionable conduct arising out of the same facts - whether references to illegitimate pressure and unconscionable conduct should be struck out : where parties compromised contract - where plaintiff alleged contract was varied prior to compromise - whether judgment as to compromise of contract created issue estoppel in relation to alleged prior variation. Supreme Court of Queensland. Court of Appeal. 16th March 2007.
by De Jersey CJ, Keane JA and Mullins J :

Multiplex Ltd v Qantas Airways Ltd [2006] Adj.L.R. 09/08
Application for declaration that respondent had no entitlement to deduct liquidated damages from various progress payments due under a construction contract - opposed : court requied to make assumptions contrary to appellant's other submissions - application refused at 1st instance- whether judge erred in declining to declare the rights of the parties to payment of the amounts claimed by respondent as liquidated damages. Court of Appeal. Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane. 8th September 2006.
by McMurdo P, Keane JA and Mullins J.

Northside Roofing P/L v Pires Constructions P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 01/17
Jurisdiction - whether a “court of competent jurisdiction” - whether proceedings pursuant to s.19 (1) (a) of the BCISPA 2004 are matters for the Tribunal or for a Court. D.C.Q. Brisbane. 17 January 2007

On Hing Pty Ltd v Phoenix Project Development P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 06/08
Application for stay or payment payment of monies paid into court following an adjudication under BCIPA 2004 : previous refusal of applicant?s application to set aside adjudicator?s order : whether stay of payment out to respondent should be ordered. Application refused. District Court of Queensland, Brisbane. 8th June 2006
by Alan Wilson SC,

Peekhrst P/L v Wallace (Andrew Bruce) : Glenzeil P/L [2007] QSC 159
Generally where review sought of decision made by adjudicator under BCIPA 2004 – Whether proper acceptance of appointment of the adjudicator – Whether adjudication application served – whether adjudicator satisfied himself that there was service of the adjudication application – whether adjudicator biased. Application to set aside statutory demand for debts based on judgment obtained pursuant to BCIPA 2004 – Where no application to set aside judgment obtained pursuant to s. 31(4) – Where no proceedings instituted pursuant to s. 100 – Where applicant delayed in submitting a list of defects – Whether in all the circumstances Court should exercise its discretion to set aside statutory demand. 6th July 2007
by Douglas J.

Pioneer Sugar Mills P/L v United Group Infrastructure P/L [2005] Adj.L.R. 11/25
Application for declaratory relief to establish that a payment claim delivered by the respondent dated 14th November 2005 is not a payment claim that is subject to the regime for assessment and adjudication established by the BCIPA 2004. Supreme Court of Queensland. Brisbane. 25th November 2005
by HHJ Byrne :

Project Development P/L v On Hing P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 04/11
Whether decision of adjudicator under BCIPA Act 2004 void or a nullity ? Court?s power to set aside judgment entered after adjudication. DCJ : Queensland District Court. 11th April 2006.
by Alan Wilson SC,

R.J. Neller Building P/L v Kjerulf David Ainsworth No2 [2008] Adj.L.R. 08/20
Costs - circumstances in which certain costs were reserved for consideration after issues in the proceeding are determined. District Court New South Wales. 20th August 2008
by Judge Robin QC,

R.J.Neller Building P/L v Kjerulf David Ainsworth [2008] Adj.L.R. 06/25
Where respondent to adjudication brought proceeding in District Court arising out of same contract as adjudication – where proceeding in District Court brought after adjudicators certificate served on respondent to adjudication but before adjudicators certificate filed in District Court – whether enforcement warrant issued upon judgment in District Court on filing of adjudication certificate should be stayed. Queensland District Court, at Maroochydore. 25th June 2008
by Dodds DCJ.

Rahmanian, M. v Building & Construction Industry Payments Agency [2006] Adj.L.R. 05/24
Review of decision of adjudication registrar to refuse application for registration as adjudicator. Brisbane. 24th May 2006.
by Mrs G Spender.

Ram Contractors Qld P/L v Krysco P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/08
Claim of contractor against sub-contract carpenters – restriction of adjudicated amount and payments under Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 – claim for defective work. Commercial & Consumer Tribunal at Brisbane. 8th April 2008
by Mr P Lohrisch.

Roadtek, Dept of Main Roads v Philip Davenport & Whitsunday Crushers P/L [2006] Adj.L.R. 03/17
Review of adjudicator's decision under BCIPA 2004 : supply & delivery of goods ? defects asserted ? defects disputed ? adjudicator made no findings re defects ? whether adjudicator erred in finding property in the materials had not passed to the applicant & thus an improper exercise of power. Application dismissed. Supreme Court of Queensland. Brisbane. 17th March 2006.
by HHJ Mackenzie J :

Ross McAlpine v William Wieland [2008] Adj.L.R. 04/08
Whether findings of Commercial and Consumer Tribunal amounted to an error of law. Queensland District Court, Rockhampton. 8th April 2008
by Nase DCJ.

State of Queensland v Epoca Constructions P/L & Phillip Davenport [2006] Adj.L.R. 10/31
Judicial Review ? Review Decision ? decisions to which JR legislation applies ? where the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an adjudicator under the BCIPA 2004 (Qld) ? whether JR under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) excluded ? whether the adjudicator?s decision is of an administrative character so as to be reviewable under Part 3 of the JRA 1991. JR ? Grounds of Review - Generally ? whether the application for JR ought to be dismissed in the exercise of discretion under ss 12, 13, 30 or 48 of the JRA. JR ? Grounds of Review ? Error of Law ? whether the adjudicator erred in failing to observe the provisions of the BCIPA ? whether error made by adjudicator in consideration of BCIPA and application and construction of the construction contract. Supreme Court of Queensland, Trial Division. Brisbane. 31st October 2006.
by Philippides J.

Tamawood Ltd & Phil Martyn Constructions P/L v Elizabeth Paans [2005] Adj.L.R. 04/15
CCT - Construction dispute : Costs - where person successful in Tribunal - where defendants ordered by Tribunal to pay damages - where no order for costs made in favour of the person - where all parties appealed to the District Court - then to CA. Costs. Court of Appeal. Supreme Court of Queensland. Brisbane. 15th April 2005.
by Willeams JJA; Keane JJA; Philippides J.

Vis Constructions Ltd, Laman & Charlene Halfhyde v James Lawson Cockburn & Kilfoy Cabinets [2006] Adj.L.R. 12/15
Application to review adjudication decision under BCISPA 2004 ? whether decision is regulated by the rules of natural justice & set aside the decision ? under the Act the adjudicator must have regard to the construction contract ? adjudicator found that there was a construction contract between claimant and builder ? builder under no obligation to perform work ? whether a contract existed ? whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to make decision . Adjudicator made a finding as to existence of a contract ? finding on a basis not suggested by applicant or respondent ? applicant denied the opportunity to be heard ? whether a fair hearing denied to the applicant. Supreme Court of Queensland at Cairns. 15th December 2006
by Judge Jones.

Vis Constructions P/L v James Lawson Cockburn & Kilfoy Cabinets [2007] Adj.L.R. 04/19
Costs – set aside. Application for costs following successful application to set aside adjudication award. SCQ. Cairns. 19th April 2007

Walton Construction (Qld) P/ L v Robert Salce : Russel Welsh : RICS Australia P/L [2008] Adj.L.R. 10/03
Validity of a decision of an adjudicator – Claim that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. Whether a “construction contract” was formed in the circumstances – Where there was already a contract for the provision of the same services at the site with another company – Whether the “agreement” amounted to a “construction contract” or a guarantee for the obligations of that other company. Supreme Court, Queensland. Brisbane. 3rd October 2008
by McMurdo J.

Western Queensland Regional CDEP Ltd v GE Constructions P/L [2007] Adj.L.R. 01/11
Application for indemnity costs ? proceeding struck out ? conduct of applicant. Brisbane. 11th January 2007
by Mr D Morzone.

Wolbers (Ross) v Day & Co P/L [2007] QDC 103
Striking out counter claims : BCISPA 2004 - defendant denying Act applies, and serving counterclaim - whether denial that Act applies negates its effect - whether counterclaim should be struck out. District Court of Queensland at Southport. 7th June 2007
by Alan Wilson SC, DCJ.

Our publications are provided in PDF format, in order to view them you will need Adobe's free Acrobat reader. Acrobat reader can be downloaded from Adobe by following the link to your left.

Top of page

    Copyright © NADR 2000, all rights reserved.