SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd v Lanskey Constructions

[2019] QSC 81

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

S.H.A. Premier Constructions Pty Ltd v Lanskey Constructions & Ors [2019] QSC 81

PARTIE:

S.H.A PREMIER CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
ACN 056 777 318
(applicant)

v
LANSKEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
ACN 010 636 512
(first respondent)
THE ADJUDICATION REGISTRAR (QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION)
(second respondent)
PAUL JASON HICK
(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

No BS1485 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 March 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2019

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

1.   The application is dismissed.

2.   I shall hear the parties as to any other orders and costs.

CATCHWORDS:

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – AUSTRALIA – BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS IN AUSTRALIA – VARIATIONS – GENERALLY – where the applicant seeks an order declaring void two adjudication decisions made by the third defendant and other ancillary or alternate relief – where adjudication decisions relate to two different projects but involve identical parties, and an identical ground to challenge each decision, namely, that each payment claim is invalid by reason of containing claims relating to more than one construction contract – whether the payment claims contained claims for work under different construction contracts or were variations

Building and Construction Industry Payments Act2004 (Qld)
Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act2017 (Qld)
Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd v Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 85
Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990)107 CLR 394
Low v MCC Pty Ltd & Ors[2018] QSC 6
Matrix Projects (Qld) Pty Ltd . Luscombe [2013] QSC 4
Rail Corporation of NSW v Nebax Constructions [2012] NSWSC 6

COUNSEL:

M Ambrose QC for the plaintiff

T Matthews QC, with S Whitten for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Thomson Geer for the plaintiff

CDI Lawyers for the defendant

1. By originating application, filed 12 February 2019, the applicant seeks an order declaring void two adjudication decisions made by the third defendant and other ancillary or alternate relief.  The adjudication decisions were issued at the request of the first respondent.  The second respondent has responsibilities in relation to them.

2. The adjudication decisions relate to two different projects but involve identical parties, and an identical ground to challenge each decision, namely, that each payment claim is invalid by reason of containing claims relating to more than one construction contract.

3. The first respondent opposes the granting of relief in favour of the applicant.  The first respondent contends the decisions related to claims in respect of a variation of a construction contract, not claims relating to more than one construction contract.

4. The second and third respondents do not actively participate in the dispute.  Each has indicated an intention to abide the order of the Court, save as to costs.  The applicant has indicated no costs will be sought against either the second or third respondents.

Background

1. The applicant is a national petroleum company.  As part of its ongoing development it simultaneously engaged the first respondent, an experienced building contractor in…