Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd v Ian James Ericson trading as Flea's Concreting & Anor

[2011] QSC 327

Supreme Court of Queensland

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Equitable Remedies
3. › Injunctions
4. › Setting aside decisions obtained by fraud
5. › Whether fraud affected only part of claim
6. › Whether entire decision should be set aside or relief limited to consequences of fraud
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial Review
3. › Grounds of Review
4. › Denial of Natural Justice
5. › Whether denial must be material or substantial for relief to be granted
6. › Whether compliance with natural justice could have made no difference to outcome
7. › Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial Review
3. › Grounds of Review
4. › Fraud
5. › Whether adjudication decision procured by fraud of a party
6. › Whether equitable jurisdiction to set aside decision obtained by fraud requires proof of non-discoverability with reasonable diligence
7. › Whether s 18 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) displaces judicial review on fraud ground
1. Contracts
2. › Building, Engineering and Related Contracts
3. › Statutory Regulation of Entitlement to and Recovery of Progress Payments
4. › Adjudication under Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld)
5. › Whether adjudicator failed to decide application within meaning of s 32(1)(b) where decision set aside for fraud
6. › Whether fresh adjudication application available
7. › Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), ss 21(3)(c), 25(3), 32(1)(b), 100

Quick Take

Where fraud in a payment claim or adjudication application under the BCIPA (Qld) affects only a discrete and quantifiable component of the claim, the court will exercise its equitable jurisdiction to limit enforcement to the unaffected portion rather than setting aside the entire adjudication decision. The equitable jurisdiction to set aside a decision obtained by fraud does not require proof that the truth could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the decision. Section 32(1)(b) of the BCIPA is unlikely to be engaged where an adjudication decision is set aside for fraud of a party (as distinct from adjudicator error), potentially leaving no statutory mechanism for re-adjudication. A denial of natural justice in the adjudication process will not warrant relief where compliance with natural justice could not possibly have produced a different result.