Ferris v Bilic

In the matter of *Ferris v Bilic*, heard by Judge Burnett, the applicant sought to set aside a bankruptcy notice. The dispute centred on the validity of the judgment upon which the bankruptcy notice was based, with the applicant arguing that the judgment was defective and therefore incapable of supporting the notice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judgment, purportedly entered pursuant to section 31 of the *Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 1999* (Qld) (BCIPA), was properly authenticated and therefore efficacious. Specifically, the court had to determine if the absence of a signature from a court officer on the adjudication certificate, filed as a judgment, rendered the judgment invalid and consequently the bankruptcy notice defective.

Judge Burnett reasoned that the authentication of a judgment is a mandatory requirement for its efficacy. Rule 978 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Qld) (UCPR) stipulates that all documents issued by the court must be signed by an appropriate officer and stamped with the court seal. The court found that the adjudication certificate, which was filed as a judgment under s 31(1) BCIPA, lacked the signature of a court officer. This absence was deemed significant and determinative, as the signature serves to confirm and authenticate that the adjudication certificate has been properly filed as a judgment, consistent with the requirements of s 31(2) BCIPA, including the accompanying affidavit. The court accepted the applicant's submission that the filing of the certificate as a judgment was inchoate without proper authentication, distinguishing the present case from *Adams v Northern Plumbing (NQ) Pty Ltd*.

Consequently, the court found the bankruptcy notice to be defective due to the invalidity of the underlying judgment. The bankruptcy notice was set aside, and no order was made as to costs.