Doolan v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty Ltd

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Sandra and Stephen Doolan brought an application to review an adjudicator's decision made under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004. The adjudicator had determined that the Doolans were liable to Rubikcon for a sum of $43,533.82, along with the adjudication fees and expenses. The Doolans argued that the adjudicator's decision was erroneous and breached natural justice principles. The respondents, including the adjudicator and appointing authority, did not appear in court as they were awaiting the outcome of the review. The Doolans had entered into a building contract with Rubikcon for the construction of eleven townhouses at Scarborough. Disputes arose towards the end of the project regarding the final inspection, the issue of a certificate, and alleged defects. Rubikcon submitted a "Final Claim" for payment, which the Doolans did not honour. Consequently, Rubikcon sought adjudication, which resulted in an order for the Doolans to pay the claimed amount. The Doolans sought judicial review, arguing that the adjudicator's decision was flawed and that there were breaches of natural justice.

The court examined the adjudicator's decision and the relevant statutory provisions, focusing on the interpretation of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004. The Act aims to ensure prompt payment of progress claims in the construction industry. The Doolans argued that Rubikcon had issued two identical final claims, which was impermissible under the Act. They contended that the adjudicator had erred in allowing the second claim. The court analysed the relevant sections of the Act, particularly sections 12 and 17, which pertain to the entitlement to progress payments and the service of payment claims. The court found that while the Act permits the inclusion of previous claims in later ones, it does not allow for identical claims to be made on different reference dates. The court concluded that the adjudicator's decision was invalid because the second claim was identical to the first, and thus did not found the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. The court did not need to address the alternative argument regarding the contract clause as the first argument was decisive. The court will hear further submissions on the appropriate form of order and the status of the filed adjudication certificate.