John Holland Pty Ltd v Schneider Electric Buildings Australia Pty Ltd

[2010] QSC 159

Supreme Court of Queensland

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Building and Engineering Contracts
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Adjudication
4. › Payment claims
5. › Whether payment claim sought to re-agitate issues decided by previous adjudicator
6. › Whether Act precludes re-agitation of same issues
7. › Whether s 27 exhaustive statement of binding matters
8. › Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), ss 17(5), 26, 27
1. Building and Engineering Contracts
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Adjudication
4. › Nature of adjudicator's decision
5. › Whether adjudicator's statement declining jurisdiction constitutes adjudicator's decision for purposes of Act
6. › Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 26(3)
1. Estoppel
2. › Issue estoppel
3. › Adjudication decisions under security of payment legislation
4. › Whether issue estoppel arises from adjudicator's decision
5. › Whether claimant should be restrained from serving adjudication application
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Re-agitation of issues determined by earlier adjudicator
4. › Injunction to restrain adjudication application

Quick Take

The Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) manifests an intention to prevent the repetitious re-agitation of the same issues determined by an earlier adjudicator, following the NSW Court of Appeal's construction of the equivalent NSW Act in Dualcorp. Section 27 of the Queensland Act is not an exhaustive statement of the matters from an earlier adjudication that bind a subsequent adjudicator. A claimant who is dissatisfied with an adjudication determination cannot re-agitate the same issues in a subsequent adjudication application, and may be restrained by injunction from doing so.