McNab Developments (Qld) Pty Ltd v MAK Construction Services Pty Ltd

In the matter of McNab Developments (Qld) Pty Ltd v MAK Construction Services Pty Ltd, the dispute arose between a contractor and a subcontractor over a building project. The subcontractor, MAK Construction Services, served a payment claim to the contractor, McNab Developments, for an amount of $853,952.97. McNab Developments argued that the subcontract had been terminated due to MAK Construction's default. MAK Construction sought adjudication of its claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld). The adjudication was conducted by an adjudicator, who ruled that McNab Developments owed MAK Construction $241,441.20. McNab Developments claimed a right to liquidated damages under the subcontract, contingent upon the date for practical completion. They filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking to void or set aside the adjudication on various grounds. The primary judge dismissed the application, leading to the current appeal.

The court was tasked with addressing several legal issues, including whether the adjudicator acted on a basis not considered by the parties, whether there was a denial of natural justice, and if the adjudicator acted unreasonably. Further, the court examined whether progress payments were permissible under common law or the contract, particularly in light of MAK Construction's failure to notify McNab Developments of variation claims in the prescribed form. The court also considered whether the adjudicator properly evaluated each claim related to the 15-day dockets and whether the omission of one backcharge affected the overall validity of the adjudication.

The court found that the adjudicator did not act on a basis not addressed by the parties and that there was no denial of natural justice. The adjudicator's decisions were considered reasonable, and the court upheld the adjudication. The court also held that MAK Construction's failure to provide proper notice of variation claims did not preclude them from receiving progress payments. Additionally, the court found no jurisdictional error in the adjudicator's handling of the 15-day docket claims. The omission of one backcharge did not impugn the overall validity of the adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that McNab Developments pay MAK Construction's costs of the appeal on the standard basis.