SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Vis Constructions Ltd & Anor v Cockburn & Anor [2006] QSC 416
PARTIES:
VIS CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 105 871 654)
(First applicant)
LAMAN & CHARLENE HALFHYDE
(Second applicant)
v
JAMES LAWSON COCKBURN
(First respondent)
KILFOY CABINETS
(Second respondent)FILE NO/S:
157 of 2006
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
15 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
6 September 2006
JUDGE:
Jones J
ORDER:
1. Declare that the adjudication decision of the first respondent, reference no. 1064504 26, purportedly made pursuant to s 26 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 is void.
2. Order that the second respondent be permanently restrained from further proceedings on the adjudication certificate issued under s 30 in respect of the said adjudication decision.
3. Leave to the parties to make written submissions on costs (including the costs of adjudication) on or before 14 February 2007.CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – EXISTENCE OF OBLIGATION – GENERALLY – application to review adjudication decision under Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 – whether decision is regulated by the rules of natural justice
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS – applicants seek to have set aside adjudication decision pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 – under the Act the adjudicator must have regard to the construction contract – adjudicator found that there was a construction contract between claimant and builder – builder under no obligation to perform work – whether a contract existed – whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to make decision
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – EXCLUSION OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – application to review adjudication decision under Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 – adjudicator made a finding as to existence of a contract – finding on a basis not suggested by applicant or respondent – applicant denied the opportunity to be heard – whether a fair hearing denied to the applicant
COUNSEL:
Mr D Morzone for the applicants
Mr M Jonsson for the respondentsSOLICITORS:
Gadens Lawyers for the applicants
Williams Graham & Carman for the respondents
By this application, the applicants seek to have set aside on various grounds an adjudication decision pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (“BCIPA”) made by the first respondent on the application of the second respondent.
The first applicant, Vis Constructions Pty Ltd (hereinafter “the builder”) is a company duly incorporated and the holder of a licence issued pursuant to the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991. It carries on the business of a registered builder. The second applicants (“hereinafter referred to jointly as “the owner”) are the registered owner of land on which they engaged the builder to erect a dwelling in which they intended to live. Mr Halfhyde is a holder of a QBSA licence but Mrs…
Continue reading Vis Constructions Ltd v Cockburn
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Vis Constructions Ltd v Cockburn [2006] QSC 416
- Case
- [2006] QSC 416
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the adjudicator's decision was regulated by the rules of natural justice and if the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision in question. Additionally, it was necessary to assess whether the adjudicator's decision on the existence of the contract was a jurisdictional error, as it was based on a ground not suggested by either party during the adjudication process. The court also considered whether the applicant's right to procedural fairness was violated by the adjudicator's unilateral determination of the contract's existence.
The court found that the adjudicator's decision was indeed subject to the principles of natural justice and that procedural fairness required the adjudicator to provide notice of the specific grounds on which the existence of the contract was determined. The adjudicator's unilateral finding on the existence of a contract, without providing the applicant with an opportunity to respond, constituted a denial of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court determined that the adjudicator's decision on the existence of the contract was a jurisdictional error, as it was based on a ground not suggested by either party during the adjudication. The court concluded that the adjudication decision was void and restrained the respondent from further proceedings on the adjudication certificate.
The court declared the adjudication decision void, ordered the respondent to be permanently restrained from further proceedings on the adjudication certificate, and granted leave for the parties to make written submissions on costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Declare that the adjudication decision of the first respondent, reference no. 1064504 26, purportedly made pursuant to s 26 of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 is void.
2. Order that the second respondent be permanently restrained from further proceedings on the adjudication certificate issued under s 30 in respect of the said adjudication decision.
3. Leave to the parties to make written submissions on costs (including the costs of adjudication) on or before 14 February 2007.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.