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

Tags

Queensland’s security for payment legislation – the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017

After many years of contractors being exhausted financially and delayed by having disputes over payment run through the court system, in 2004 Queensland joined other states in making legislation designed to fast track the determination of claims to payment.  That legislation was then revised in 2017 to the current Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017.  The security of payment legislation is a statutory regime for builders and subcontractors to utilise to recover monies owing for payment claims for work done under a construction contract by following a process to adjudication. Adjudication is fast and cost effective in comparison to the onerous process of a court, and a “must use” tool for contractors and subcontractors and starts by the making of a “payment claim” which I will discuss briefly today.  A valid payment claim is essential to making a successful adjudication application as an Adjudicator will not be able to decide whether anything must be paid unless the payment claim is valid. The requirements for a valid payment claim under the Act include: A reference date is a date stated in the construction contract that states the date for the making of a progress claim for work done (e.g. 25th day of each month, or last day of the month etc).  If there is no date specified in the construction contract to make a progress claim, the reference date is worked out by applying section 67 of the Act.  The reference date will be the last day of the month in which the work commenced and the last day of each latter month. A payment claim must be served by the party who carried out the construction work on the party who is liable to pay for the construction work under a construction contract.  Proper service of a payment claim is an essential requirement to proceed to an adjudication.  Service of a payment claim must be effected in accordance with section 102 of the Act and/or section 39 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954.  If a payment claim is not validly served, it will be invalid and consequently an adjudication application to recover payment pursuant to the payment claim will fail. In my next article, I will discuss what is needed to respond when a payment claim is received. 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.

QCAT – Consumer/Trader dispute fails because a Real Estate Agent is not a “trader”.

In the recent decision of Quach v GLC Partners Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 265, a claim made by QCAT as a minor civil dispute against a Real Estate agency was dismissed because the jurisdiction to have claims between a consumer and a trader does not extend to claims against  professionals.  Background QCT provides a convenient and generally economical forum through which consumers can advance claims in respect of goods and services.  These are “Minor Civil Disputes” which include residential tenancy claims, minor debt claims, dividing fence disputes, and consumer/trader disputes.  In the consumer/trader disputes a variety of orders can be made, including for the refund of money or relief against the obligation to pay a bill.  In the subject proceedings, a claim is made against a real estate agency for certain matters.  The Member considered whether QCAT had jurisdiction, noting that in Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act, a consumer is an individual for whom services are supplied for a fee other than in a trade or business carried on by the individual, and a trader is a person who in trade or commerce carries on the business of supplying services other than when acting in the exercise of a discipline that is not ordinarily regarded as within the field of trade or commerce.  The question in this particular matter was whether a real estate agent was “acting in the exercise of a discipline that is not ordinarily regarded as within the field of trade or commerce”.  In the decision, the Member quoted from previous QCAT authority which adopted the meaning of “Profession” as one which “would embrace intellectual activity, or manual activity controlled by the intellectual skill of the operator, whereby services are offered to the public, usually though not inevitably for reward and requiring professional standards of competence, training and ethics, typically reinforced by some form of official accreditation accompanied by evidence of qualification”.  In the decision, the Member observed that the activities of the Real Estate agency were – in this instance – acting in the exercise of a discipline that is not ordinarily regarded as within the field of trade or commerce – ie it was a profession and accordingly – the Real Estate agency was not a “Trader” for the purposes of the QCAT Act.  Similarly, Lawyers, Doctors, Dentists and Valuers are generally not considered Traders for the purpose of a consumer and trader dispute, meaning that claims against them cannot be brought within QCAT if they relate to the services that they have provided. For advice in respect of consumer law matters, please contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au

Beware if Subcontractors are not licensed to carry out construction work

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in St Hilliers Property Pty Ltd v Pronto Solar Innovations Pty Ltd highlights the consequences that can result if Subcontractors are not licensed to carry out any aspect of work to be undertaken under a construction contract. Subcontractors must ensure that you are licensed to carry out each and every item of work set out in the scope of works incorporated into a construction contract at the time of entering into the construction contact. If you are not licensed to carry out any item of work, you are not entitled to any monetary or other consideration for doing any work pursuant to the construction contract. This means that Subcontractors are not entitled to progress payments under section 7, 12 and 17 of the BCIPA. Therefore, any payment claim is invalid and of no effect under the BCIPA. Further, any adjudication determination made in favour of a Subcontractor not licensed to carry out work is void and of no effect and can be set aside. The decision also highlights that in these circumstances, the Subcontractor will also be unable to issue valid charges under the Subcontractors Charges Act 1974 (Qld) (“the SCA”). This is because there is no payment due in accordance with the construction contract which a charge under the SCA could secure. Therefore, a Subcontractor may be entirely unsecured and at risk of recovering nothing for work done in the event of the insolvency of the other contracting party. If you require further information or assistance please contact Justin Mathews of our office on (07) 5574 0111 or email justinm@qbmlaw.com.au.