Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd v Ian James Ericson trading as Flea's Concreting

The case involved Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd, a head contractor, and Ian James Ericson, trading as Flea’s Concreting, a subcontractor. The primary dispute was about the validity of an adjudication decision made under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) where the adjudicator had accepted the subcontractor's claim in full. The head contractor sought an injunction to restrain the subcontractor from enforcing the adjudication decision until the trial or further order. The court had to determine whether the head contractor was denied natural justice and whether such a denial must be substantial or material to warrant relief. Additionally, the court had to decide if the adjudication decision should be set aside due to fraud affecting only part of the claim and whether an adjudicator could be deemed not to have decided an application due to the applicant's fraud.

The legal issues before the court included the scope of judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) concerning fraud, the application of equitable remedies such as injunctions in cases involving fraudulent claims, and the principles of natural justice in adjudication processes. The court had to evaluate whether the adjudicator's decision could be set aside based on evidence discovered after but discoverable before the decision and whether the adjudicator could be considered to have not decided an application due to fraud by the applicant.

The court ruled that the head contractor was not denied natural justice in a manner that warranted relief. The court also determined that a denial of natural justice need not be substantial or material for relief to be granted, but in this instance, it found no such denial occurred. Regarding the fraud, the court held that the adjudication decision should not be set aside solely because part of the claim was fraudulent. It further held that the adjudicator could be deemed to have decided the application despite the applicant's fraud. Finally, the court found that section 18 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) did not displace judicial review on the grounds of fraud.

The orders included that the head contractor would be required to pay a specified amount to the subcontractor by a certain date, with interest, and the subcontractor would be restrained from enforcing the adjudication decision. If payment was not made by the specified date, the earlier order would be set aside, and the subcontractor would be restrained from recovering more than the specified amount by recourse to bank guarantees. The Registrar was directed to release bank guarantees to the head contractor under certain conditions. The court also granted liberty to apply for further orders.