Allpro Building Services Pty Limited v Micos Architectural Division Pty Limited

The matter in Allpro Building Services Pty Limited v Micos Architectural Division Pty Limited was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from a payment claim in the construction industry, where Allpro Building Services, the claimant, sought adjudication from Micos Architectural Division, the respondent, under the Building and Construction Industries Security of Payments Act 1999. The primary issue before the court was whether the adjudicator appointed to hear the claim, who had a prior history of dispute with Allpro concerning the payment of fees, was subject to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Allpro argued that the adjudicator's history of conflict and refusal to acknowledge the challenge to his authority created a scenario where the adjudication process was not impartial.

The court had to determine whether the adjudicator's refusal to acknowledge the challenge to his right to determine the matter resulted in a breach of the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement for impartiality. The court also needed to assess whether the adjudicator's past communications with colleagues about the parties involved could have influenced his decision-making process, and if so, whether this amounted to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court was tasked with balancing the critical significance of adjudications being determined without regard to extraneous circumstances against the potential impact of the adjudicator's prior history with the claimant.

The court concluded that the adjudicator's refusal to accept the challenge to his authority and his history of conflict with Allpro did indeed give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court found that the adjudicator's refusal to recuse himself, coupled with his history of disputes with the claimant, undermined the impartiality required in adjudication proceedings. The court held that the adjudicator's past communications, which included negative remarks about Allpro, further substantiated the apprehension of bias. Consequently, the court determined that the adjudication process was tainted, and the decision made by the adjudicator was invalid. The court ordered that the matter be referred to a new adjudicator to ensure an impartial determination of the payment claim.