Pico Play Pty Ltd v Coast Entertainment Operations Limited

In the matter of Pico Play Pty Ltd v Coast Entertainment Operations Limited, the case before the court involved a dispute regarding a payment claim made under a contract for the design, manufacture, supply, and delivery of works. Pico Play Pty Ltd, the applicant, submitted a payment claim to Coast Entertainment Operations Limited, the first respondent, which was subsequently disputed. Pico then applied for adjudication of the payment claim, with an adjudicator appointed to determine the dispute. The adjudicator ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, dismissing it, and further found that Pico had contracted to perform work outside the scope of its licence, thereby contravening a statutory provision.

The legal issues before the court were whether Pico had contracted to perform work outside the scope of its licence and whether the adjudicator’s dismissal of the payment claim for lack of jurisdiction constituted a jurisdictional error. The court had to ascertain, de novo, the existence of a valid construction contract as a prerequisite for the adjudicator’s jurisdiction and determine if the adjudicator's decision was void due to this jurisdictional error. The existence of a valid construction contract was deemed an objective jurisdictional fact that the court was required to determine independently.

The court examined the terms of the contract and the scope of work defined within Pico’s licence. It found that the contract stipulated that Pico would provide design input and work within a specified budget for the themed elements of the project, without detailing specific construction activities. Given the restricted scope of Pico’s licence, the court concluded that the work Pico was contracted to perform fell within its licence, and thus the adjudicator’s finding that Pico had contracted to perform work outside the scope of its licence was erroneous. Consequently, the court held that the adjudicator’s decision was void due to this jurisdictional error.

The final order declared that the adjudication decision of the second respondent dated 22 April 2025 in relation to the applicant’s adjudication application number 2813665 was void.