Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd

The case of Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd involves a dispute between the applicant, Conveyor, and the first respondent, Basetec, regarding an adjudication decision made under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld). The adjudication was between Conveyor and Basetec, with the second respondent, AdjudicateQ, acting as the adjudicator. Conveyor sought to challenge the adjudicator’s decision, claiming that the adjudication application was not properly served and that the adjudicator had erred in concluding that Conveyor was out of time to provide a response.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the adjudication application was properly served on Conveyor and whether the adjudicator erred in concluding that Conveyor was out of time to provide a response. Additionally, Conveyor argued that the adjudicator's refusal to permit a response deprived the adjudicator of jurisdiction and amounted to a denial of natural justice. The court had to consider the service of the adjudication application, the timeliness of Conveyor's response, and the procedural fairness of the adjudication process.

The court found that the adjudication application was not properly served as some documents were served by email and others were contained in a Dropbox file. This non-compliance with the required service procedures led to the conclusion that the adjudication application was not properly served. Furthermore, the court found that the adjudicator did not err in concluding that Conveyor was out of time to provide a response. The court held that the adjudicator's refusal to permit a late response did not deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction and did not amount to a denial of natural justice. Consequently, the decision of the adjudicator was upheld in its entirety.

The court declared that the decision of the adjudicator, dated 10 September 2013, from the adjudication between Conveyor and Basetec is of no effect. This outcome effectively nullifies the adjudicator’s decision, leaving the parties to resolve their dispute through other means, such as litigation or further negotiation.