Paladin Projects Pty Ltd v Visie Three Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Paladin Projects Pty Ltd v Visie Three Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] QSC 230

PARTIES:

PALADIN PROJECTS PTY LTD ACN 604 051 578

(applicant)
v

VISIE THREE PTY LTD ACN 601 326 667

(first respondent)

NANCY ALEXANDER (ADJUDICATION REGISTRAR)

(second respondent)

DAVID ROBERT THOMAS SEENEY (ADJUDICATOR J1261305)

(third respondent)

FILENO/S:

BS No 6272 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON:

25 September 2024

DELIVEREDAT:

Brisbane

HEARINGDATE:

19 June 2024

JUDGE:

Williams J

ORDERS:

1.   The parties are directed to agree an order reflecting these reasons and provide it to the Associate to Williams J by 2 October 2024.

2.   If an order cannot be agreed, both parties are directed to provide their proposed order, together with an explanation for the differences of no more than 2 pages, to the Associate to Williams J by 2 October 2024.

3.   I will hear from the parties as to costs after the order has been made.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRGRESS PAYMENTS – ADJUDICATION OF PAYMENT CLAIMS – where the

applicant, as a contractor, entered into a construction contract with the first respondent, as principle – where the applicant lodged an adjudication application in respect of a Payment Claim – where the applicant seeks judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision – whether parts of the adjudication decision are affected by jurisdictional error – whether the adjudicator considered new reasons for withholding payment in contravention of s 88(3)(b) – whether the adjudicator considered material outside the statutory limitation in s 88(2) – whether the adjudicator’s decision denied the applicant natural justice – whether it was established on the evidence that there was a realistic possibility the adjudicator would have made a different decision – whether orders that the identified parts of the adjudication decision be severed pursuant to s 101(4) of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS

– where the applicant, as a contractor, entered into a construction contract with the first respondent, as principle – where the applicant lodged an adjudication application in respect of a Payment Claim – where the applicant seeks judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision – whether parts of the Adjudication Decision are affected by jurisdictional error and are void with the balance of the adjudication decision to remain binding on the parties to the proceeding

Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017

(Qld), s 82(3)-(5), s 88(3)(b), s 101(4)

Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 1991(Qld) s 75,

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991

(Qld) s 68B, s 70

Acciona Agua Australia Pty Ltd v Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 133, followedNorthbuild Construction Sunshine Coast Pty Ltd v Beyfield Pty Ltd [2015] 1 Qd R 463, applied
The Minister for Commerce v Contrax Plumbing (NSW)…