A document issued by a superintendent under a construction contract that recommends payment to the principal, rather than stating the amount the respondent proposes to pay, does not satisfy the definition of 'payment schedule' in s 69 of the BIFA. A contractual deeming provision cannot cure non-compliance with the statutory definition. An adjudication application that identifies the wrong document as the payment schedule is invalid under s 79(2)(c), and an adjudicator who determines the dispute by reference to the wrong payment schedule exceeds jurisdiction. The standard of reasons required of an adjudicator under the BIFA is lower than that required of a judge.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.