EHome Construction Pty Ltd v GCB Constructions Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

EHome Construction Pty Ltd v GCB Constructions Pty Ltd
[2020] QSC 291

PARTIES: 

EHOME CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
ABN 72 607 445 009
(applicant)
v
GCB CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
ABN 26 151 244 254
(first respondent)
RANJIT KHOSLA J1077622
(second respondent)
THE ADJUDICATION REGISTRAR, QUEENSLAND
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION
(third respondent)

FILE NO/S: 

BS 6386 of 2020

DIVISION: 

Trial Division

PROCEEDING: 

Originating Application

DELIVERED EX 

18 September 2020

TEMPORE ON: 

DELIVERED AT: 

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

18 September 2020

JUDGE: 

Bond J

ORDER: 

1.	The originating application is dismissed.
2.	The question of the order which should be made as to costs will be determined on the papers and in this regard the parties are directed to file and serve submissions on that question within seven days of today, such submissions to be limited to three pages.
3.	The sum of $668,342.58 together with any accretions thereto which has been paid into Court by the applicant must be paid out to the first respondent.
4.	Order 3 is stayed until 4 pm on 25 September 2020.

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS – ADJUDICATION OF PAYMENT CLAIMS – where a payment claim was made for work carried out up to termination of a construction contract – where the payment claim was made, and the adjudication determined, on the basis

that the claim was a final payment claim – whether the payment claim was made within time – where the payment claim included an amount for retention monies – whether the payment claim was a valid payment claim – whether the adjudication decision was affected by jurisdictional error

Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), s 75

Acciona Agua Australia Pty Ltd v Monadelphous Engineering Pty

Ltd [2020] QSC 133, applied

COUNSEL:	R A Perry QC, with I Erskine, for the applicant J Baartz for the first respondent No appearance for the second and third respondents
SOLICITORS:	Anthony Delaney Lawyers for the applicant Mills Oakley for the first respondent No appearance for the second and third respondents

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for declarations that a payment claim served by the first respondent on the applicant is void because it did not comply with the requirements of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (BIFA). The application further seeks a declaration that the adjudication in respect of that payment claim, namely, a decision by the second respondent dated 5 June 2020, is not a valid adjudication pursuant to BIFA and is void. The second respondent and the third respondent have not participated in the proceeding. Accordingly it is convenient to refer to the first respondent simply as the respondent and the second respondent as the adjudicator.

There is no significant dispute in relation to the factual background. The applicant provides domestic and commercial building and construction services in Queensland. The respondent is a builder and…