Tomkins Commercial & Industrial Builders Pty Ltd v Starline Interiors Pty Ltd

The case of Tomkins Commercial & Industrial Builders Pty Ltd v Starline Interiors Pty Ltd involves a dispute over the calculation of a final payment claim under a construction subcontract. The applicant, Tomkins Commercial & Industrial Builders Pty Ltd, was the head contractor engaged by York Constructions for the construction of a residential tower at Main Beach on the Gold Coast. The first respondent, Starline Interiors Pty Ltd, was subcontracted by the applicant to perform certain components of the construction work. The contract and subcontract were terminated in September 2024. In October 2024, the first respondent issued a final payment claim seeking $1,908,040.70 (excluding GST) and subsequently lodged an adjudication application under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld). The applicant sought a declaration that the second respondent's decision, which awarded a sum greater than that claimed, was affected by jurisdictional error and was void. The key issues for the court to decide were whether the second respondent denied the applicant procedural fairness by failing to call for further submissions before departing from the consensus approach to calculating the adjudicated amount, whether the second respondent failed to consider the applicant's payment schedule or the parties' submissions on the method of calculating the adjudicated amount, and whether the payment schedule lodged by the first respondent substantially complied with the approved form required under the Act.

The court found that the second respondent did not deny the applicant procedural fairness by failing to call for further submissions. The court held that the second respondent was not obliged to seek further submissions from the parties before making his decision. The court also found that the second respondent did not fail to consider the applicant's payment schedule or the parties' submissions on the method of calculating the adjudicated amount. The court held that the second respondent had considered the relevant materials and had made his decision based on the evidence before him. Finally, the court found that the payment schedule lodged by the first respondent substantially complied with the approved form required under the Act. The court held that the payment schedule was sufficiently detailed and provided the necessary information to enable the second respondent to make his decision.

The court found that the second respondent's decision was affected by jurisdictional error and was void. The court held that the second respondent had failed to follow the consensus approach to calculating the adjudicated amount as agreed by the parties. The court held that the second respondent had incorrectly deducted the amounts previously paid by the applicant rather than the amounts previously certified by the applicant. The court held that this error was jurisdictional and rendered the second respondent's decision void.

The court ordered that the Adjudication Decision of the second respondent dated 15 April 2025 in relation to the first respondent’s Adjudication Application number 2761515 was affected by jurisdictional error and was void. The court will hear from the parties as to the form of orders and as to costs.