- Home
- Nomination
- UK Cases
- Overseas Cases
- Panel
- Guidance
- Glossary
- Legislation
- England & Wales
- Wales
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland
- Australia (Australian Capital Territory)
- Australia (New South Wales)
- Australia (Northern Territory)
- Australia (Queensland)
- Australia (Southern Territory)
- Australia (Tasmania)
- Australia (Victoria)
- Australia (Western Australia)
- Eire
- Isle of Man
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Singapore
- Links
- Contact Us
Australia (Queensland) Cases
Click on a case to view.
-
6th June 2014
Ball Construction Pty Ltd v Conart Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 124Where the applicant and a company entered into a building contract – where that company and the first respondent entered into a deed of assignment with the consent of the applicant – where the director of the original construction company swore a statutory declaration – where the director of the first respondent also swore a statutory declaration – where the statutory declarations stated that no variations, claims or disputes existed – whether the statutory declarations and the agreement to enter into a deed of assignment created an estoppels
-
21st May 2014
Mudri v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCAT 222Permitted Individual – where the applicant was a director of a company – where the company was liable to make a payment to a third party under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – liability to pay as a matter of law – where applicant commenced proceedings against the third party – whether not paying the adjudicated amount constitutes a reasonable step for the purposes of s 56AD(8) amounts to reasonable step
-
2nd May 2014
Northbuild Construction Sunshine Coast Pty Ltd v Beyfield Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 80where the applicant, as head contractor, entered into a construction contract with the first respondent, as subcontractor – where the first respondent made a payment claim pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the payment claim was referred to an adjudicator – where the adjudicator ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent – where the applicant seeks judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision - where the applicant contends that the adjudicator’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error – whether the adjudicator misinterpreted the contract – whether misinterpretation of the contract amounts to a jurisdictional error.
-
7th April 2014
J Hutchinson Pty Ltd v Cada Formwork Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 63Where the applicant and the first respondent had a contract for the performance by the first respondent of formwork services for a construction project – where the first respondent made an adjudication application under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where an adjudication decision was made by the third respondent in favour of the first respondent – where the third respondent relied on documents that had not been provided to the applicant – where those documents were not submitted to the third respondent as part of the first respondent’s adjudication application – whether the third respondent failed to comply with the requirements of natural justice.........
-
7th March 2014
Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd and Anor [2014] QSC 30Where the applicant challenges an adjudicator’s decision under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where some of the adjudication application was served on the applicant by way of email – where other documents in the adjudication application were contained in a Dropbox file - whether the adjudication application was properly served on the applicant.
-
14th February 2014
Beyfield Pty Ltd v Northbuild Construction Sunshine Coast Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 12Where a subcontractor gave a head contractor bank guarantees as security for the performance of its obligations – where the head contractor alleged certain breaches on the part of the subcontractor and sought to call on the guarantees – where the contract provided for recourse to the retention following notice being given of a liquidated or unliquidated demand – whether the provision was inconsistent with s 67E of the Queensland Building Services Act 1991 and therefore inoperative.
-
20th December 2013
J&D Rigging Pty Ltd v Agripower Australia Ltd & Ors [2013] QCA 406Contracts - Building, Engineering and related contracts – Remuneration - Statutory Regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments - Adjudication of payment claims.
-
20th December 2013
BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] QCA 394Contracts – Building and Engineering related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – adjudication of payment claims
-
31st October 2013
Kellett Street Partners Pty Ltd v Pacific Rim Trading Co Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 298Building, Engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Recovery – where the applicant and first respondent entered into an oral contract for building work – where work was done until March 2012 – where the first respondent made various payment claims under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where those claims were adjudicated – where two disputed claims included claims for some of the same construction work performed in other, earlier claims – whether the payment claims were invalid – whether the applicant is entitled to declaratory relief
-
25th October 2013
McNab Developments (Qld) Pty Ltd v MAK Construction Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] QSC 293Contracts – Building, Engineering and Related Contracts, Remuneration, Statutory Regulation of Entitlement to and recovery of Progress Payments – Adjudication of Payment Claims – where the applicant entered into a subcontract with the respondent to carry out concreting and formwork services – where the applicant terminated the subcontract – where the first respondent served a payment claim on the applicant pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the reference date identified in the payment claim was after the termination date of the subcontract – where the applicant served a payment schedule – where the payment claim was referred to adjudication – whether identification of patently incorrect reference date deprived adjudicator of jurisdiction – where the adjudicator decided on the amount...