Procon Developments (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hi-Cal Bricklaying

[2025] QSC 67

Supreme Court of Queensland

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contracts
2. › Building, engineering and related contracts
3. › Remuneration
4. › Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments
5. › Adjudication of payment claims
6. › Reference date as precondition to valid payment claim
7. › Whether reference date existed for payment claim
8. › Whether re-sending invoice constituted new payment claim
9. › Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), ss 67, 70, 75
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Adjudication under security of payment legislation
4. › Whether adjudicator denied procedural fairness by deciding reference date not contended for by either party without giving opportunity to be heard
5. › Materiality of denial of procedural fairness
6. › Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), ss 84, 95
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Jurisdictional error distinguished from error within jurisdiction
4. › Adjudicator's error in identifying wrong reference date
5. › Whether error within or going to jurisdiction
6. › Remitter of adjudication application to Adjudication Registrar
7. › Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), ss 79, 101

Quick Take

An adjudicator who determines a reference date that neither party contended for, without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, commits a material denial of procedural fairness rendering the decision invalid. Re-sending an existing payment claim under cover of a letter does not constitute a new, separate payment claim for the purposes of s 75(4) of the BIF Act. An adjudicator's error in identifying the wrong reference date is an error within jurisdiction (not jurisdictional error) where a valid reference date in fact exists.