Total Lifestyle Windows Pty Ltd v Aniko Constructions Pty Ltd (No 3)

Total Lifestyle Windows Pty Ltd (the applicant) brought an application against Aniko Constructions Pty Ltd (the first respondent) and others, challenging an adjudicator's decision regarding a disputed progress payment under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld). The applicant sought to overturn the adjudicator’s decision, which found that the first respondent was entitled to the disputed payment. The applicant argued that the adjudicator had erred in considering certain defences not raised in the payment schedule, and that the previous judgment of the court had found the adjudicator had made jurisdictional errors. The applicant contended that the matter should not be remitted to the same adjudicator, and sought an order remitting the matter to a different adjudicator. The applicant also sought a costs order on the standard basis.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the matter should be remitted to a different adjudicator for reconsideration, given the previous jurisdictional errors identified by the court. Another issue was whether the applicant was entitled to an award of costs on the standard basis. The court had to consider the implications of the previous judgment and the nature of the errors made by the adjudicator. The court also had to determine whether the errors were such that they warranted a new adjudication by a different adjudicator.

The court found that the adjudicator had indeed made jurisdictional errors, and that the matter should not be remitted to the same adjudicator. Instead, the matter was to be remitted to a different adjudicator for reconsideration, in light of the previous judgment. The court also held that the applicant was entitled to an award of costs on the standard basis, as the application was successful and the first respondent had not demonstrated any special circumstances that would warrant a departure from the standard costs order.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the first respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application. The matter was to be remitted to a different adjudicator for reconsideration in accordance with the directions provided by the court.