Civil Contractors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Galaxy Developments Pty Ltd; Jones v Galaxy Developments Pty Ltd

Civil Contractors (Aust) Pty Ltd, along with its representative, Jones, appealed against a decision of the primary judge, who dismissed their claims against Galaxy Developments Pty Ltd. The primary judge held that the adjudicator’s decision, which required Galaxy to pay Civil Contractors an adjudicated amount of $1.4 million, was void because it was delivered beyond the statutory time limit under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017. Additionally, the primary judge found that Civil Contractors did not hold a valid building licence to carry out all of the work in question, which rendered the building contract void and consequently the adjudicator's decision void as well. The judge also ruled that the adjudicator was not entitled to be paid any fees due to bad faith and misrepresentation. The appeal raised issues concerning the interpretation of statutory time limits, the validity of the adjudicator’s decision, and the procedural fairness in findings against the adjudicator.

The court considered whether the adjudicator's jurisdiction was contingent upon adhering to the statutory time limit, which, once passed, would nullify the adjudicator's decision. The court found that the statutory time limit was integral to the adjudicator's jurisdiction, and any failure to comply rendered the decision void. Additionally, the court examined whether the adjudicator's fees could be withheld due to alleged bad faith and misrepresentation, considering the procedural fairness in making such findings without providing the adjudicator an opportunity to be heard. The court concluded that the adjudicator's failure to deliver the decision within the required time justified withholding his fees.

The appeals were dismissed by the court, affirming the primary judge’s findings. The court ruled that the adjudicator’s decision was indeed void due to the lateness and thus did not bind the parties. It was also determined that the adjudicator was not entitled to any fees due to the reasons specified by the primary judge. The court ordered that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeals.

Orders:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. The appellants to pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal.