Lean Field Developments Pty Ltd v E & I Global Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd

Case [2014] QSC 293

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lean Field Developments Pty Ltd v E & I Global Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QSC 293

PARTIES:

LEAN FIELD DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 140 897 052

(applicant)
v
E & I GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (AUST) PTY LTD
ACN 155 548 477
(first respondent)
and
SCOTT PETERSSON
(second respondent)

FILE NO:

5936 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 August 2014

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

The application is dismissed.1.    

The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.2.    

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACT – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS –where the applicant seeks a declaration that an adjudication decision is void by reason of jurisdictional error – where applicant submits that no reference date accrued pursuant to Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the contract required submission of a draft payment claim before payment claim could be made – where on numerous previous occasions the applicant paid without requiring the submission of a draft payment claim – whether the accrual of a reference date can be made conditional – whether a condition which prevents a statutory entitlement from accruing is rendered ineffective by section 99 of the Act – whether the applicant had waived its right to require a draft payment claim – whether the applicant was estopped from relying on the clause requiring a draft payment claim

Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) ss 7, 8, 12, 99 schedule 1

Ace Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Postal Corporation [2011] 1 Qd R 504; [2010] QCA 055, cited
Beckhaus v Brewarrina Council [2002] NSWSC 960, cited
Brewarrina Shire Council v Beckhaus Civil Pty Ltd (2003) 56 NSWLR 576; [2003] NSWCA 4, cited
BHW Solutions Pty Ltd v Altitude Constructions Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 214, cited
Capricorn Quarries Pty Ltd v Inline Communication Construction Pty Ltd [2013] 2 Qd R; [2012] QSC 388, cited
De Neefe Signs Pty Ltd v Build1 (Qld) Pty Ltd[2010] QSC 279, cited
John Holland Pty Ltd v Coastal Dredging & Construction Pty Ltd [2012] 2 Qd R 435; [2012] QCA 150 , cited
John Holland Pty Ltd v Coastal Dredging Construction Pty Ltd (unrpt) per Dalton J 29 February 2012, cited
McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Heavy Plant Leasing Pty Ltd[2013] QSC 269, cited
Mansouri and Anor v Aquamist P/L (2011) 27 BCL 194; [2010] QCA 209, cited
Minister for Commerce v Contrax Plumbing [2004] NSWSC 823, cited
Northbuild Construction Pty Ltd v Central Interior Linings Pty Ltd [2012] 1 Qd R 525; [2011] QCA 22, cited
Okaroo Pty Ltd v Vos Construction and Joinery Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 45, cited
Plaza West Pty Ltd v Simon’s Earthworks (NSW) Pty…

Continue reading Lean Field Developments Pty Ltd v E & I Global Solutions (Au...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lean Field Developments Pty Ltd v E & I Global Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 293
Case
[2014] QSC 293
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lean Field Developments Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought a declaration that an adjudication decision was void by reason of jurisdictional error in a dispute with E & I Global Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd (the first respondent). The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) concerning the entitlement to progress payments. The applicant argued that no reference date accrued as required by the Act because the contract stipulated a draft payment claim had to be submitted before a payment claim could be made. The applicant also contended that the first respondent had waived its right to require a draft payment claim, or alternatively, was estopped from relying on the clause requiring a draft payment claim.

The court had to determine whether the accrual of a reference date could be made conditional upon the submission of a draft payment claim. It also needed to consider whether a contractual condition that prevents a statutory entitlement from accruing is rendered ineffective by section 99 of the Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant had waived its right to require a draft payment claim and whether the first respondent was estopped from relying on the clause requiring a draft payment claim.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated any jurisdictional error in the adjudication decision. The court held that the accrual of a reference date could be made conditional upon the submission of a draft payment claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the requirement for a draft payment claim was not rendered ineffective by section 99 of the Act. The court also found that the applicant had not waived its right to require a draft payment claim, and the first respondent was not estopped from relying on the clause requiring a draft payment claim. The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.1.

The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis.2.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.