Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd v Queensland Investment Corporation

Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd (the respondent) sought to recover moneys due under a construction contract from Queensland Investment Corporation (the appellant). The dispute concerned the validity of a payment schedule provided by the appellant, which the respondent argued was not a valid payment schedule under the *Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999* (NSW). The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether a document constituted a valid payment schedule under section 14 of the Act when it was not explicitly referred to in an accompanying cover letter, and whether a payment schedule signed by an agent without express authority could be considered as having been provided by the principal. The Court also considered the extent of an agent's authority, particularly in relation to acts incidental to the effective execution of express authority.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that a document could be a payment schedule even if not specifically mentioned in a cover letter, provided it was clearly identifiable as such and intended to operate as a payment schedule. Furthermore, the Court held that an agent could have the authority to provide a payment schedule even without express written authority, if such authority could be inferred from the circumstances and the nature of the agent's role in managing the contract. The principles of agency, including implied and apparent authority, were applied to determine whether the agent's actions bound the principal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.