Bridgeman Agencies Pty Ltd v S.E. Qld Plumbing & Drainage Pty Ltd

Bridgeman Agencies Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought to have an adjudication decision set aside or declared void for want of jurisdiction, which was made by the second respondent in relation to a payment claim issued by S.E. Qld Plumbing & Drainage Pty Ltd, the first respondent. The applicant and the first respondent had entered into two subcontracts under which the first respondent was to perform hydraulic services works on a project. A payment claim was issued by the first respondent to the applicant, and subsequently, an adjudication application was lodged in respect of the payment claim. The second respondent issued an adjudication decision, determining that the amount claimed was payable by the applicant to the first respondent. The applicant contested that the payment claim was not a "payment claim" within the meaning of the Building Industry Fairness (Security and Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) because it did not identify the construction work or related goods and services to which the progress payment related, as required by s 68(1)(a).

The court had to determine whether the payment claim met the statutory definition of a "payment claim" and whether the adjudication decision should be set aside or declared void for want of jurisdiction. In addressing the issue of whether the payment claim met the statutory definition, the court noted that in determining whether work has been sufficiently identified, the background of each of the parties derived from their past dealings and exchanges of documentation should be taken into account. The court examined the relevant documentation and the history of the parties' dealings to ascertain whether the payment claim was sufficiently specific in identifying the construction work or related goods and services. The court held that the payment claim did meet the statutory definition of a "payment claim" and dismissed the applicant's application. The court determined that the adjudication decision should not be set aside or declared void for want of jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the originating application filed on 18 November 2024. The court will hear the parties as to costs.