Unifor Australia Pty Ltd v Katrd Pty Ltd atf Morshan Unit Trust t/as Beyond Completion Projects

Unifor Australia Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision made by an adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld). The respondent, Katrd Pty Ltd, had successfully pursued an adjudication claim against Unifor, but Unifor contended that the adjudicator's decision was flawed. Unifor argued that the adjudicator had not correctly identified the terms of the contract between the parties and that an essential statutory pre-requisite for the adjudication decision had not been satisfied. They further argued that the decision was infected by jurisdictional error and that there was an error of law on the face of the record.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the adjudicator's decision was unlawful due to the respondent providing the wrong supporting spreadsheet to the adjudicator, which neither party had noticed at the time of the adjudication. The court considered whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision given the incorrect information provided and whether the error was so fundamental that it rendered the decision invalid. The court also considered whether the error constituted an error of law on the face of the record.

The court found that the adjudicator's decision was indeed flawed and unlawful due to the incorrect information provided by the respondent. The court held that the adjudicator's difficulty in identifying the terms of the contract was a significant issue that undermined the decision's validity. The court concluded that the error was a jurisdictional one, as it went to the very authority of the adjudicator to make the decision. The court further found that the error constituted an error of law on the face of the record, which justified the court's intervention.

The court declared the adjudicator's decision void and restrained the respondent from pursuing an adjudication certificate in relation to the decision. The court ordered that the parties be heard as to costs, leaving the matter open for further directions on the issue of costs.