Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v O'Sullivan

Case [2009] QSC 220

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v O’Sullivan & Anor [2009] QSC 220

PARTIES:

BLOOMER CONSTRUCTIONS (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 071 344 100
(applicant)
v
SEAN O’SULLIVAN
(first respondent)
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER VADASZ TRADING AS AUSTRALASIAN PILING COMPANY

(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 6449 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 August 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 July 2009

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

The application be dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES – EXCLUDED DECISIONS – OTHER DECISIONS – where the applicant entered into a contract with the second respondent for building and construction services – where the second respondent issued a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the first respondent adjudicator was appointed under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act and adjudicated in favour of the second respondent – where the applicant applies for a prerogative order under Part 5 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) to quash the adjudication decision – where under an amendment by the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007, Part 3 Division 2 Building and Construction Industry Payments Act is an enactment to which the Judicial Review Act does not apply – whether Part 5 Judicial Review Act is excluded from applying to Part 3 Division 2 Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 – whether the adjudication decision can be subject to review under Part 5 Judicial Review Act

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant entered into a contract with the second respondent for building and construction services – where the second respondent issued a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the first respondent adjudicator was appointed under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act and adjudicated in favour of the second respondent – where the second respondent held a conditional contractor’s licence – whether the second respondent was precluded from entering into a building contract, issuing a payment claim and applying for adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS – where the applicant entered into a contract with the second respondent for building and construction services – where the second respondent issued a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the first respondent adjudicator was appointed under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act and adjudicated in favour of the second respondent – where the second respondent held a conditional contractor’s licence – whether the adjudicator has no jurisdiction to make the adjudication decision

Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 10(2), Part 3 Division 2
Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007 (Qld)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 18, s 41, s 43, s 48,…

Continue reading Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v O'Sullivan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v O'Sullivan [2009] QSC 220
Case
[2009] QSC 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd applied for judicial review of an adjudication decision under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) issued by an adjudicator in favour of O'Sullivan. The application was brought before the court under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The key issues before the court were whether the adjudication decision was subject to review under the Judicial Review Act, and whether O'Sullivan was precluded from entering into a building contract, issuing a payment claim, and applying for adjudication due to holding a conditional contractor's licence. The court needed to determine if the Judicial Review Act applied to the adjudication decision and if the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the adjudication decision given O'Sullivan's licence status.

The court found that the Judicial Review Act does not apply to the adjudication decision under Part 3 Division 2 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act, as amended by the Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007. The court held that the exclusion of the Judicial Review Act from applying to this part of the Act meant the adjudication decision could not be subject to review under the Judicial Review Act. The court also found that O'Sullivan's conditional licence did not preclude them from entering into a building contract, issuing a payment claim, or applying for adjudication. The court concluded that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the adjudication decision.

The application was dismissed. The court held that the adjudication decision was not subject to review under the Judicial Review Act, and that O'Sullivan was not precluded from entering into a building contract, issuing a payment claim, and applying for adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.