Lendlease Building Pty Ltd v BCF Airport Systems Pty Ltd & Ors

Lendlease Building Pty Ltd sought a declaration that an adjudication decision in favour of BCF Airport Systems Pty Ltd, in the amount of $995,081.18, was void. The court was asked to consider whether the adjudication decision was made in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the security of payments in the construction industry. This case involved the construction of baggage handling systems at the Gold Coast Airport, where Lendlease was the principal contractor and BCF Airport Systems Pty Ltd was the sub-contractor. BCF Airport Systems Pty Ltd submitted a payment claim to Lendlease for $1,215,733.23, which was subsequently adjudicated in BCF's favour in the amount of $995,081.18. Lendlease challenged the validity of the adjudication decision, arguing that the adjudicator failed to consider submissions, misapplied the statutory provisions, and that the decision-making process breached natural justice.

The court considered whether the adjudicator's failure to consider certain submissions was material and whether it amounted to a breach of natural justice. The court also examined whether the adjudicator was exercising judicial power within the meaning of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth). Additionally, the court assessed whether the proper construction of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) gave rise to a jurisdictional fact, and whether a payment claim in a cross-border project must reasonably identify the location of the construction work. The court concluded that the adjudicator's failure to consider the submissions was not material, and that there was no breach of natural justice. The court also found that the adjudicator was not exercising judicial power within the meaning of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth). Furthermore, the court determined that the proper construction of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) did not give rise to a jurisdictional fact, and that a payment claim in a cross-border project did not necessarily need to reasonably identify the location of the construction work.

The court dismissed Lendlease's application to set aside the adjudication decision, finding that Lendlease was not entitled to the injunction it sought. The court found that the adjudication decision was valid and that Lendlease was not entitled to the declaration it sought. The court also ordered that the application be dismissed and that further submissions be heard on the issue of costs. The court further noted that there had been monies previously paid into Court and that it would hear the parties in relation to any consequential orders which flow from these reasons.