An appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. At first instance, the Court held that an adjudication decision made under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (BIF Act) was not valid. The Appellant (RHG Construction) was the builder and the Respondent (KP Developments) was the developer under a design and construct contract of an apartment block at Kangaroo Point. The contract between the parties included AS 4902-2000 General Conditions, in particular, an amended clause 37.2. The clause relevantly provided timeframes for the provision of a payment schedule with the penultimate paragraph of Clause 37.2 providing that the Superintendent was the agent of KP Developments and that any payment schedule issued by the Superintendent was deemed to be as agent of KP Developments.
The main issue was whether RHG Construction had “identified” the relevant payment schedule in the Adjudication Application pursuant to s 79(2)(c) of the BIF Act and, relatedly, what was the relevant payment schedule pursuant to s 69 of the BIF Act.
The judgment is published here.
Damian and Florence summarise the issue of competing payment schedules in the context of this particular construction contract and the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017, as well as the reasons for the judgment in the case note ‘Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 – An Issue of Competing Payment Schedules.’