Australia (Queensland) Cases

Click on a case to view.

  • 2nd October 2014
    Sunshine Coast Regional Council v Earthpro Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 271
    Where an adjudication decision was made by the second respondent under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) in favour of the first respondent and against the applicant – where the applicant has brought proceedings challenging the validity of the adjudication decision – where the applicant seeks an interlocutory injunction restraining the first respondent from taking steps to enforce the adjudication decision pending the determination of the principal proceedings – where the applicant was prepared to pay moneys into court pending the determination of the principal proceedings – where the applicant submits that if the injunction were not granted there is a risk that it would not be repaid if ultimately successful in the principal proceedings – whether an injunction should be granted.
  • 22nd September 2014
    Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd v Isaac Regional Council [2014] QSC 231
    Where the applicant and respondent entered into a contract for the construction of road works – where there was an extensive history of disputes as to payments owed under the contract - where the parties invoked the dispute resolution provisions under the contract, including mediation and arbitration – where the applicant made a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act (Qld) 2004 (the Act) – whether the applicant can pursue its statutory remedies under the Act concurrently with arbitration proceedings – whether the claim is an abuse of process.
  • 16th September 2014
    McNab Developments (Qld) Pty Ltd v MAK Construction Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QCA 232
    Where the appellant was a contractor and the first respondent was a subcontractor for a building project – where the first respondent served a payment claim on the appellant totalling $853,952.97 – where the appellant contended that the subcontract had been terminated due to the first respondent’s default – where the first respondent sought adjudication of its claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the adjudication was heard by the third respondent – where the third respondent decided that the appellant owed the first respondent $241,441.20 – where the appellant claimed a right to liquidated damages under the subcontract – where the appellant’s right to liquidated damages depended on the date for practical completion – where the applicant filed an application to the Supreme Court seeking...
  • 15th September 2014
    Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor v Allstate Access (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 223
    Where the first respondent agreed to supply the applicants with scaffolding equipment – where the first respondent alleged the applicants damaged the equipment – where the first respondent made a payment claim pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) and the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) – where the third respondent adjudicator ordered the applicants pay the first respondent for the replacement costs of the equipment – whether the amounts claimed were payments for the supply of goods or for damages for breach of contract – whether the adjudicator erred in the interpretation of the contract – whether such an error is a jurisdictional error
  • 27th August 2014
    Eco Steel Homes Pty Ltd v Hippo’s Concreting Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 135
    Where the applicant seeks a declaration that the adjudicator’s decision is void for jurisdictional error – where the applicant contends that the payment claims did not comply with s 17 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (“BCIPA”) – where the applicant contends that prior proceedings instituted by the first respondent in the Magistrates Court prevent the first respondent from having recourse to the adjudication process under BCIPA – where the applicant contends that it did not enter into contractual agreement with the first respondent – whether for these reasons the adjudicator’s decision is void for jurisdictional error
  • 27th August 2014
    CMF Projects Pty Ltd v Masic Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 209
    Where the applicant seeks a declaration that the adjudicator’s decision is void – where the adjudicator did not consider the applicant’s “adjudication response” – where the adjudicator excluded the “adjudication response” from consideration as it was not received within the required time limits of s 24 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the applicant contends that its “adjudication response” was in time, due to the way in which the “notice of an adjudicator’s acceptance of the application” was served on the applicant – whether the “adjudication response” conformed with the requirements of s 24 and consequently the adjudicator’s decision is void for not taking the “adjudication response” into consideration.
  • 15th August 2014
    Kaycee Trucking Pty Ltd v M and C Rogers Transport Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 185
    whether the Payment Claim was validly made – whether the Payment Claim was made under a relevant construction contract – whether the Adjudication Application sought adjudication of a claim under a relevant construction contract – whether the Payment Claim related to more than one construction contract Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 30, s 31
  • 11th August 2014
    Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd and Anor (No 2) [2014] QSC 180
    Where the applicant was entirely successful – where the decision of the adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) was declared to be of no effect – whether a subsequent adjudication should affect the costs order - whether costs should follow the event.
  • 31st July 2014
    Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Ltd v Sun Engineering (Qld) Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QSC 170
    Where the applicant is seeking to stay an adjudicator’s decision made under BCIPA that required it to pay monies to the respondent - where the monies are currently being held in Court – where the respondent conceded that a “prima facie” case had been shown by the applicant – where the main issue turned on the balance of convenience – where the applicant submitted that it doubted the respondents financial capacity – where the applicant submitted it should not bear the risk that the respondent would be able to repay the monies the applicant is successful in the final hearing – where the respondent submitted that as a matter of policy under BCIPA the adjudicated amount should be paid to it – whether the applicant should bear the risk that if it is successful in the final hearing the respondent would be unable to repay the monies
  • 24th June 2014
    Allan Thompson Building and Development v Mecca Bah (Gold Caost) Pty Ltd [2014] QCAT 300
    Cost plus contract for installation and repair – authority to source and arrange appliances and services – obligation to source on best terms – obligation to supervise – margin applicable to cost plus contract