Paladin Projects Pty Ltd v Visie Three Pty Ltd

Paladin Projects Pty Ltd, the Applicant, has sought judicial review of an adjudication decision rendered on 7 May 2024, by the Third Respondent, the Adjudicator, in relation to a construction contract with Visie Three Pty Ltd, the First Respondent. The Applicant claims that specific parts of the adjudication decision are void due to jurisdictional errors and seeks orders for severance of these parts or, alternatively, for the entire decision to be set aside. The Second Respondent, the Adjudication Registrar, and the Third Respondent did not participate in the hearing but have indicated they will abide by the court's order, except for potential costs. The First Respondent opposes the application, arguing that the adjudication decision is valid.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether parts of the adjudication decision were affected by jurisdictional error, specifically whether the Adjudicator considered new reasons for withholding payment in contravention of s 88(3)(b) of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), whether the Adjudicator considered material outside the statutory limitations in s 88(2), and whether the Adjudicator's decision denied the Applicant natural justice. The Applicant argued that the decision on liquidated damages, Variation 60, and Variation 62 contained jurisdictional errors. The First Respondent contended that any errors did not affect the outcome and that the Adjudicator's decision on Variation 62 was not a breach of natural justice.

The court examined the statutory framework and the Adjudicator's reasoning in the adjudication decision. It found that the Adjudicator had indeed considered new reasons for withholding payment in relation to Variation 60, which was a jurisdictional error under s 88(3)(b) of the BIF Act. Additionally, the consideration of the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 1991 and Part 5 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 in relation to Variation 62 constituted a jurisdictional error as it exceeded the statutory limitations in s 88(2). However, the court found no substantial breach of natural justice regarding the decision on liquidated damages as the First Respondent had not demonstrated a realistic possibility that the outcome would have been different had the Applicant had the opportunity to make further submissions. Consequently, the court found that the parts of the adjudication decision concerning Variation 60 and Variation 62 were void due to jurisdictional errors, while the balance of the decision remained binding.

The court ordered the parties to agree on an order reflecting these reasons and provide it to the Associate to Williams J by 2 October 2024. If an agreement cannot be reached, the parties must submit their proposed orders with explanations for the differences, no longer than two pages, by the same date. The court will address costs after the order has been made.