• Level 5, Evandale Place, 142 Bundall Road, Bundall, QLD, Australia

Tags

Challenging a Determination by an Adjudicator

A contractor or subcontractor liable to pay an adjudication amount pursuant to a determination by an adjudicator under the Act can apply to have the determination set aside. An application to challenge a determination by an adjudicator under the Act must be made to the Supreme Court of Queensland.  The Supreme Court frequently hands down decisions where it has considered these challenges. There are limited grounds available to challenge a determination. The grounds to set aside a determination are limited to jurisdictional error. Jurisdictional error is a complex area of law and can be difficult to evaluate in any given case. Examples of jurisdictional error committed by an adjudicator in making a determination under the Act include, inter alia, the adjudicator: For example, on 9 September 2025 the Court declared an adjudication decision void in the matter of Pico Play Pty Ltd v Coast Entertainment Operations Limited [2025] QSC 227 https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/157819  In that particular matter, the adjudicator had decided that he did not have jurisdiction to determine the adjudication for two reasons.  The claimant (Pico) applied for a declaration that the decision was void for jurisdictional error – i.e. that the adjudicator ought to have accepted that he had jurisdiction and determined the amount owing.  The adjudicator’s determination was declared void but it is unclear how the matter was then dealt with, perhaps it returned for a fresh determination by the adjudicator or a different one. But it is worth noting the time cost of the dispute – the payment claims were served on 28 January, 2025, the adjudication application was made on 25 March, 2025, the adjudication determination was given on 22 April, 2025, the proceedings filed on 1 May 2025, the matter was heard by the Court on 23 June 2025, and the decision given on 9 September, 2025.  There would also be attendant financial cost and cashflow considerations for parties to disputes such as these. Justin Mathews, partner of our firm can be contacted on 07 5574 0111 or via email at justinm@qbmlaw.com.au to provide advice and assistance with respect to all aspects of the adjudication process. Meet The Author! Meet the author of this blog article, Justin Mathews. Over the next several weeks, we will post a series of articles relating to Queensland building and construction matters written by Justin. Justin is a registered Adjudicator in Queensland under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 and also in the Northern Territory under its security of payment legislation, and an accredited specialist in commercial litigation.  He represents a number of Queensland building contractors and other parties in building and construction disputes both through the adjudication process and in the various state courts of Queensland, New South Wales, and Northern Territory, as well as advice in relation to contractual matters, and QBCC regulatory matters including matters involving the statutory warranty scheme. In these articles Justin will discuss a number of matters of interest to members of the Queensland building and construction industry. For enquiries concerning building matters, Justin can be contacted by email justinm@qbmlaw.com.au or Ph: (07) 5574 0111.

Adjudication Process

The adjudication process starts by the claimant (the contractor owed money) filing an Adjudication Application in the QBCC, together with its supporting material.  This is done online. Once it is filed, then the application and supporting material has to be served on the respondent (the person who owes the money) in accordance with the Act, and a registered adjudicator is appointed to determine the application.  Many adjudications fail because the adjudicator considers that they do not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.  If that happens, then the claimant  will usually have to pay the adjudicator’s costs.  Assuming though that the adjudicator has jurisdiction, then the adjudicator will decide what amount (if any) is payable, the due date for payment, and the interest rate that applies.  The respondent to the claim has the opportunity to file an adjudication response.  In that response, the respondent provides materials and an explanation for why they say that no amount or a lesser amount is owing.  That response also has to be given within a strict time period. The adjudicator will often call for submissions from the parties and will determine the application taking into account those submissions and the supporting documents.  This decision has to be made within a very strict and short timeframe, and generally, the adjudicator will require their fee to be paid before releasing their decision to the parties. If the adjudicator has found that the respondent is liable to pay an amount (called the “Adjudicated Amount”), then it must be paid within the timeframe provided for by the Act and a judgment can be registered in a court and enforced.  In some cases, a claimant can lodge a charge under the Act for the Adjudicated Amount over certain real property owned by the respondent.  This charge is generally available to a person contracting with the land owner, but would not usually be available for a subcontractor against (say) a builder, because the builder does not own the project property. This ability to lodge a charge on land is a very powerful tool to be used in the appropriate circumstances.  A decision of an adjudicator does not always finalise the dispute between the claiming contractor and the respondent.  There are continuing rights available to both, including for the party disappointed by the decision to make further claims outside of the adjudication process as the adjudication process is intended to avoid payment disputes starving the claimant of money, but recognise that this process does not allow for the full articulation of all matters between the parties.  In my next post, I will discuss challenging an adjudicator’s decision. Meet The Author! Meet the author of this blog article, Justin Mathews. Over the next several weeks, we will post a series of articles relating to Queensland building and construction matters written by Justin. Justin is a registered Adjudicator in Queensland under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 and also in the Northern Territory under its security of payment legislation, and an accredited specialist in commercial litigation.  He represents a number of Queensland building contractors and other parties in building and construction disputes both through the adjudication process and in the various state courts of Queensland, New South Wales, and Northern Territory, as well as advice in relation to contractual matters, and QBCC regulatory matters including matters involving the statutory warranty scheme. In these articles Justin will discuss a number of matters of interest to members of the Queensland building and construction industry. For enquiries concerning building matters, Justin can be contacted by email justinm@qbmlaw.com.au or Ph: (07) 5574 0111. Also Read: Queensland’s security for payment legislation – the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 Responding to payment claims