Background
CGC Qld Pty Ltd engaged Brizmasonry Pty Ltd under a written subcontract to perform construction work. After Brizmasonry proposed restructuring and sought CGC’s consent to novate the subcontract to its related entity, Ziegel Co Pty Ltd, CGC did not sign the proposed novation. Brizmasonry later entered external administration and Ziegel obtained a building licence.
Ziegel nevertheless performed work for CGC, supplied a schedule of rates, and issued a series of payment claims that CGC paid or partly paid. Ziegel’s fifth claim, issued on 29 August 2025, was not paid. Ziegel obtained an adjudication decision under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) awarding it $79,531.87. CGC paid that amount into court and sought to have the decision declared void for jurisdictional error.
The Court’s Holding
Hindman J dismissed CGC’s application. The Court held that, by the time of the fifth payment claim, CGC and Ziegel had at least an “other arrangement” constituting a construction contract under the Act. Their course of dealings was sufficiently bilateral and concluded: Ziegel performed work at CGC’s request, had provided rates, and CGC had previously paid contract and variation claims calculated consistently with those rates.
The Court also held that the relevant reference date was the 25th of each month, based on CGC’s payment-claim reminders and the parties’ conduct. Ziegel’s claim was therefore properly made for the 25 August 2025 reference date. Finally, the adjudicator did not commit jurisdictional error by considering Ziegel’s further submissions, filed 24 minutes after the adjudicator’s deadline. Whether to treat such submissions as properly made was a matter within the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A signed novation or formal written subcontract is not essential to a construction contract under the BIF Act.
- A repeated course of requested work, stated rates, and payment of earlier claims can establish a bilateral construction arrangement.
- An adjudicator may accept slightly late further submissions called for by the adjudicator without invalidating the decision.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the BIF Act’s practical, cash-flow-focused operation. Parties can become subject to the adjudication regime through their conduct even where a formal replacement subcontract was never executed.
It also confines judicial-review challenges based on procedural timing. A deadline set by an adjudicator for further submissions is not itself a basic and essential statutory condition whose breach automatically renders an adjudication decision void.