Bezzina Developers Pty Ltd v Deemah Stone (Qld) Pty Ltd

The case of Bezzina Developers Pty Ltd v Deemah Stone (Qld) Pty Ltd concerns an arbitration dispute under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld). The primary dispute revolves around the adjudication of progress claims submitted by the appellant, Bezzina Developers, and the decisions made by the adjudicator, the second respondent. The first respondent, Deemah Stone (Qld) Pty Ltd, challenged the adjudicator's decisions on the grounds of alleged errors in law and procedural fairness. The court was tasked with determining whether the adjudicator correctly exercised his powers and duties under the Act, including whether he was required to value work in a manner consistent with previous adjudications and whether he should have sought further submissions from the parties.

The legal issues before the court included whether the adjudicator was required to make a bona fide attempt to value the work in the progress claims, whether the adjudicator was obligated to consider previous adjudications even if not informed by the parties, and whether the adjudicator was required to seek further submissions regarding prior adjudications. These issues hinged on the interpretation of sections 26 and 27 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld). The court examined whether the adjudicator's failure to adhere to these statutory requirements constituted a jurisdictional error warranting relief under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

The court found that the adjudicator did not err in law by failing to make a bona fide attempt to value the work, as section 26 of the Act required the adjudicator to decide rather than inquire. However, the court held that section 27 did impose an obligation on the adjudicator to value work consistently with previous adjudications unless informed otherwise. The adjudicator's failure to consider the prior adjudication decision constituted a jurisdictional error, as it did not align with the statutory requirements. Additionally, the court ruled that while the adjudicator had the power to seek further submissions under section 25(4)(a), this was not a mandatory obligation under section 27.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders made on 7 November 2007 were set aside. In lieu of those orders, the court ordered that the application for an order of review and other relief filed by the first respondent be dismissed with costs to be assessed on the standard basis. Furthermore, the first respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal, except for the costs of the appeal record, which were to be borne by the appellant.