Background
Hauton Rd Childcare Pty Ltd engaged Checkpoint Constructions Pty Ltd under an Early Contractor Involvement contract for design and cost-management work relating to a proposed childcare centre. Checkpoint later served payment claim PC3 under Queensland’s Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 and applied for adjudication after Hauton issued a payment schedule proposing a negative amount.
The adjudicator determined that the ECI contract terminated when the parties entered a final construction contract on 28 September 2025 and awarded Checkpoint $100,050.50 including GST, plus interest. Hauton sought judicial review, alleging four jurisdictional errors concerning the applicable reference date, work performed after that date, the payment claim’s identification of the claimed work, and the adjudicator’s refusal to consider Hauton’s submissions on that identification issue.
The Court’s Holding
Wilson J held that the adjudication decision was void for jurisdictional error on the first two grounds. The only available reference date for PC3 was 28 September 2025. The adjudicator’s treatment of the reference date and of amounts claimed for work after that date did not validly discharge the statutory adjudicative function.
The Court rejected Hauton’s third ground, holding that PC3 sufficiently identified the construction work and related goods and services for the purposes of s 68(1)(a). Although the adjudicator denied procedural fairness by refusing to consider Hauton’s jurisdictional submissions on that issue, the error was not material: there was no realistic possibility that considering those submissions would have produced a different decision. The parties were directed to submit agreed orders reflecting the reasons, while costs were reserved for agreement or further written submissions.
Key Takeaways
- An adjudicator must correctly determine and apply the reference date supporting a payment claim.
- A claim tied to a final reference date cannot validly support adjudication of payment for work performed after that date.
- A respondent may raise a jurisdictional objection in its adjudication response even if the objection was not included in its payment schedule.
- A denial of procedural fairness invalidates an adjudication only when the error is material to the outcome.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that reference dates remain a jurisdictional foundation of Queensland security-of-payment adjudications, particularly when the relevant construction contract has terminated. Adjudicators must distinguish work falling within the operative reference date from later work rather than treating timing defects merely as valuation issues.
It also clarifies the limits of restrictions on new reasons in an adjudication response: those restrictions do not prevent a respondent from advancing genuine jurisdictional objections. Even so, judicial relief for procedural unfairness still depends on whether the omitted consideration could realistically have changed the result.