J Hutchinson Pty Ltd v Galform Pty Ltd & Ors

[2008] QSC 205

Supreme Court of Queensland

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Building and Construction Law
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Adjudication
4. › Validity of payment claim
5. › Whether second payment claim for same amount already subject of judgment constituted valid payment claim
6. › Merger of cause of action in judgment
7. › Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), ss 17, 21
1. Building and Construction Law
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Adjudication
4. › Jurisdictional prerequisites
5. › Whether existence of valid payment claim is essential precondition to adjudicator's jurisdiction
6. › Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), ss 17, 21
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Second adjudication application on same claim
4. › Whether oppressive and vexatious
5. › Circumvention of consent orders and undertakings to the Court
1. Judgments and Orders
2. › Res judicata
3. › Merger of cause of action in judgment
4. › Whether adjudication giving rise to judgment under security of payment legislation creates res judicata
5. › Whether interim nature of statutory payment prevents merger

Quick Take

A payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) cannot be made in respect of a cause of action that has merged in a judgment, even where the judgment was itself obtained through the statutory adjudication process. A judgment obtained pursuant to Part 3 of the Act gives rise to res judicata and is conclusive unless and until set aside by a court exercising the contractual jurisdiction preserved by s 100. A second adjudication application on the same claim in circumstances where consent orders and undertakings restrain enforcement of the first adjudication constitutes an abuse of process.