Whillier v Rotec Design Limited

In the District Court of Queensland, Judge Vasta considered a dispute between the applicant, Whillier, and the respondent, Rotec Design Limited. The applicant sought to enforce an adjudication decision made under the *Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004* (Qld) (BCIPA). The respondent sought to set aside the adjudication decision, arguing it was void due to a jurisdictional error.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the adjudicator had committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider a crucial aspect of the respondent's payment claim response. Specifically, the court had to determine if the adjudicator's alleged failure to consider the respondent's argument regarding the absence of a valid progress claim constituted a reviewable error that rendered the adjudication decision void.

Judge Vasta reasoned that for an adjudication decision to be void for jurisdictional error, the error must be fundamental and go to the root of the adjudicator's power. The court found that the adjudicator had, in fact, considered the respondent's submissions, including the argument about the absence of a valid progress claim, even if the adjudicator ultimately disagreed with that submission. The court held that the adjudicator's interpretation of the BCIPA and the parties' contract, and the subsequent decision based on that interpretation, did not amount to a jurisdictional error. The adjudicator had not failed to exercise their jurisdiction, but rather had exercised it, albeit in a manner the respondent found unfavourable.

Consequently, the court dismissed the respondent's application to set aside the adjudication decision and ordered that the adjudication decision be enforced.