Livingstone Shire Council v EarthTEC Pty Ltd

The matter between Livingstone Shire Council and EarthTEC Pty Ltd was heard before the Court. Livingstone, the first respondent, argues that the adjudicator's interpretation of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) was correct and that there was no failure to provide natural justice. Alternatively, they contend that any alleged error by the adjudicator, or any failure to provide natural justice, does not amount to a jurisdictional error sufficient to set aside the decision. Livingstone and EarthTEC had entered into a construction contract for the revetment wall, road remediation works, and stabilisation of a section of the Scenic Highway at Statue Bay. EarthTEC served a Payment Claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) for $2,714,649.11, which Livingstone contested. The adjudicator determined that Livingstone was required to pay EarthTEC $1,364,696.80 exclusive of GST.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the adjudicator's interpretation of s 26(2) of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) was correct and whether there was a failure to accord natural justice. Livingstone argued that the adjudicator erred in his construction of the Act and that there was a failure to provide natural justice. EarthTEC, on the other hand, maintained that the adjudicator's interpretation was correct and that there was no failure to provide natural justice. The Court needed to determine whether the adjudicator's interpretation of s 26(2) was correct and whether any alleged error amounted to a jurisdictional error sufficient to set aside the decision.

The Court examined the adjudicator's interpretation of s 26(2) of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) and whether there was a failure to provide natural justice. The Court found that the adjudicator correctly interpreted s 26(2) of the Act, which limited his jurisdiction to consider section 4 of the Act. The Court also found that there was no failure to provide natural justice, as the adjudicator had asked the parties for further submissions four times and the parties were not asked to address the adjudicator on the jurisdiction issue. Therefore, the Court held that any alleged error by the adjudicator, or any failure to provide natural justice, did not amount to a jurisdictional error sufficient to set aside the decision.

The Court will hear from the parties as to the form of the order and as to costs.