Australia (Queensland) Cases

Click on a case to view.

  • 8th October 2009
    Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd v Reed Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 328
    Contracts – Building, Engineering and related Contracts – Other matters – whether the respondent should be restrained from seeking an adjudication certificate and filing a judgment in court pursuant to ss 30 and 31 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2001 (Qld)
  • 25th September 2009
    Surfabear Pty Ltd v GJ Drainage & Concrete Construction Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 308
    Building and Engineering Contracts – Adjudication – Contract – Where respondent undertook construction work – Where negotiation for work made with home owners – Where respondent demands payment for construction work – Where owners deny liability for payment – Where respondent serves payment claim on applicant builder – Where applicant denies existence of construction contract with respondent – Where matter referred to adjudicator under BCIPA – Where jurisdiction of adjudicator challenged by applicant – Where adjudicator’s decision in favour of respondent – Where applicant challenges adjudicator’s decision – Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to adjudicate – Whether questions should be determined at trial.
  • 10th September 2009
    Park Avenue Pty Ltd v Sullivan [2009] QDC 292
    Building Contracts – where identical purported payment claims served – where date on second purported payment claim different from first – where both purported payment claims for same reference date – where respondent did not respond to either purported payment claim – application for judgment
  • 4th September 2009
    Reed Construction (Q) Pty Ltd v Dellsun Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 263
    Corporations Law – Statutory Demand – Setting Aside – Where respondent entered contract with applicant for construction work – Where dispute over amount to be paid for work – Where respondent served applicant with various versions of a claim for payment, each for different amount – Where applicant asserted an offsetting claim for rectification of faulty workmanship by respondent – Where respondent served payment claim under BCIPA – Where applicant responded with payment schedule – Where dispute referred to adjudicator under BCIPA – Where decision issued in favour of respondent – Where respondent issued statutory demand for adjudication amount - Where inconsistencies among statements of the respondent – Where applicant seeks set aside of statutory demand – Whether there is a genuine dispute concerning the alleged...
  • 4th September 2009
    Northside Projects Pty Ltd v Trad & Anor [2009] QSC 264
    Building & Engineering Contracts – Adjudication – Where the first respondent issued two identical payment claims with the same reference date – Where the applicant issued payment schedules in respect of both payment claims – Where the second identical claim was referred to an adjudicator - Where the applicant challenged the validity of the payment claim – Where the adjudicator held the payment claim was valid – Whether the second identical payment claim was valid for the purposes of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) — Authorities and principles discussed – Whether the adjudicator erred in interpreting cases – Whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine dispute.
  • 3rd September 2009
    Vadaxz v Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 261
    Contract — Building & Construction — where plaintiff has recovered adjudication determination and judgment against defendant — where plaintiff is indebted to subcontractors and does not fully reveal his financial circumstances — where defendant asserts cross-claim for damages and defective works — defendant seeks stay and retention of money paid into Court by it — whether refusal of stay will cause irreparable prejudice.
  • 27th August 2009
    MC Projects Pty Ltd v Nigel Farah (t/a The Tiling Crew) v Graydone Kline and Anor [2009] QDC 288
    Uniform Civil Procedure Rules – Building & Construction Industry Payments Act –Where an enforcement warrant was issued authorising redirection of specified debts certainly payable -Where enforcement creditor performed work under sub-contract with the enforcement debtor pursuant to enforcement debtor’s contract with the third persons - Where no debt was certainly payable by the third persons to the enforcement debtor – whether a claim or allegation of money owing is sufficient to establish a debt - whether there was a debt certainly payable by the third persons to the enforcement debtor that could be redirected.
  • 27th August 2009
    Securcorp Ltd v Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 249
    Contracts – Building, Engineering and related Contracts – Other matters – where the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) sets out a regime for making a payment claim under a construction contract – where the respondent undertook not to serve any further payment claim – where the applicant seeks a declaration that it is not liable to pay the respondent for building work – where there is extensive evidence on behalf of the applicant that there is no basis for a claim by the respondent – where the lack of evidence to the contrary is due to the respondent’s being directed to file material only in the event that the adjudicator ruled in its favour, which did not occur – whether it should be declared that the applicant is not liable to pay the respondent for building work undertaken
  • 20th August 2009
    Baxbex Pty Ltd v Bickle (No2) [2009] QSC 270
    Procedure – Costs – Departing from the general rule – Order for costs on an indemnity basis – where respondent sought costs of and incidental to the originating application to be assessed on the indemnity basis – where applicant did not oppose an order for costs being made on the standard basis but not an indemnity basis – where the applicant on this application had not acted “irresponsibly” in persisting with this application – where the applicant’s solicitor’s request that the respondent’s solicitor articulate the alleged non-compliance was not responded to – whether it was an appropriate case to depart from the usual order concerning costs
  • 11th August 2009
    All Type Developments Pty Ltd v Hickey [2009] QSC 224
    Corporating – Winding Up – Winding up in insolvency – Statutory Demand – Application to set aside demand – genuine dispute as to indebtedness – Offsetting and other like claims – Generally – where the applicant entered into a building contract with the respondent builder – where the respondent served a payment claim on the applicant and subsequently obtained an adjudication decision for payment of the claim – where the adjudication decision amount was registered as a judgment debt and partially satisfied – where the respondent served a creditor’s statutory demand on the applicant for the unsatisfied judgment debt amount – where the applicant applies to set aside the statutory demand on the basis that it has an offsetting claim – whether the statutory demand should be set aside pursuant to s 459H of the...