CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v MSS Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd t/as MSS Steel

CPB Contractors Pty Ltd, the applicant, brought an application against MSS Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd t/as MSS Steel, the first respondent, and others. The dispute centers around a payment claim submitted by the first respondent on 1 August 2024, to which the applicant responded on 21 August. The applicant contends that its response constituted a payment schedule. The adjudicator, however, determined that the payment schedule had failed to comply with section 69(c) of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld). The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's response to the payment claim was a payment schedule under the Act, which would determine the scope of the adjudicator's jurisdiction.

The court examined the statutory framework and found that the existence of a valid payment schedule is crucial to establishing the adjudicator's jurisdiction to proceed under the Act. Section 88(3)(b) of the Act mandates that an adjudication response is not to be considered by the adjudicator if a payment schedule was not provided. The court referred to the decision in Melaleuca View Pty Ltd v Sutton Constructions Pty Ltd & Ors, where it was held that the determination of whether a document constitutes a payment schedule is a jurisdictional fact. The court found that the applicant's response on 21 August did not constitute a payment schedule, thereby affecting the adjudicator's ability to consider it.

Accordingly, the court granted the application and declared that the response dated 21 August 2024 to the payment claim dated 1 August 2024 is not a payment schedule for the purposes of the Act. The court will hear further submissions from the parties regarding additional orders and costs.