Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QSC
  3. 2024
  4. Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension AU Pty Ltd - [2024] QSC 235

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension AU Pty Ltd[2024] QSC 235

Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension AU Pty Ltd[2024] QSC 235

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension AU Pty Ltd ATF BD Hope Unit Trust & Ors [2024] QSC 235

PARTIES:

PLATFORM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

(ACN 632 191 872)

(applicant)

v

FOURTH DIMENSION AU PTY LTD

(ACN 658 408 247) ATF BD HOPE UNIT TRUST

(first respondent)

TERRY TEH (ADJUDICATION REGISTRATION NO. J15087090)

(second respondent)

JONATHAN SIVE

(ADJUDICATION REGISTRATION NO. J1099713)

(third respondent)

REGISTRAR APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 150 OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY FAIRNESS (SECURITY OF PAYMENT) ACT 2017

(fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 9648/24

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 October 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 September 2024

JUDGE:

Copley J

ORDERS:

  1. It is declared that the adjudication decision of the second respondent dated 20 May 2024 in relation to adjudication application number 2542677 is void ab initio because the second respondent was not a registered adjudicator under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) at the time he purported to make the decision.
  2. The fourth respondent is ordered to remove Adjudication Decision 2542677 from publication on its website.
  3. The application for a declaration in relation to Adjudication Decision 2578814 made by the third respondent on 12 July 2024 is refused. 

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – STATUTORY REGULATION OF ENTITTLEMENT TO AND RECOVERY OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS – ADJUDICATION OF PAYMENT CLAIMS – where the applicant filed an application seeking that two adjudication decisions be declared void – where the applicant contends that as a consequence of the lapse in the registration of adjudication the second respondent could not make an adjudication decision – where the first respondent consents to the Court making a declaration that the first adjudication decision is void – where the applicant contends that in relation to the second adjudication decision the first respondent failed to comply with s 79 (4)(a) of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (“the Act”) – where the first respondent submits that it complied with s 79(4)(a) by providing the applicant with a document that accorded with the expanded meaning of “copy” provided in s 79(6) of the Act – where the issue depends on the proper construction of s 79(4) and (6) of the Act – whether a pre-condition of making a valid adjudication decision depends upon the first respondent giving a complete copy of the adjudication application to the applicant – whether the first respondent provided a copy of the adjudication application under s 79(4) and (6) of the Act

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14B

Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), s 75, s 76, s 78, s 79, s 81, s 82, s 83, s 84, s 88

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 10

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024, s 95B

CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384

FCT v St Hubert’s Island Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1978) 138 CLR 210

Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 290

Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 91

Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd v Total Lifestyle Windows Pty Ltd (t/as Total Concept Group) [2017] NSWSC 194

R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507 at 521

SZTAL v Minister for Immigration (2017) 262 CLR 362

COUNSEL:

B E Codd and C H Matthews for the applicant

K T Grimshaw for the first respondent

No appearances by the second, third and fourth respondents

SOLICITORS:

Wood L&M Solutions for the applicant

Baker Merz Lawyers for the first respondent

No appearances by the second, third and fourth respondents

  1. [1]
    By application filed on 23 July 2024 the applicant sought a number of orders,  principally,  declarations pursuant to s 10 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court that:
    1. Adjudication Decision 2542677 purportedly made by the second respondent on 20 May 2024 is void; and
    2. Adjudication Decision 2578814 purportedly made by the third respondent on 12 July 2024 is void.
  2. [2]
    For the reasons set out below there will be a declaration that Adjudication Decision 2542677 is void.  There will also be an order that the fourth respondent remove this Adjudication Decision from its website.
  3. [3]
    For the reasons set out below no declaration will be made in relation to Adjudication Decision 2578814.  
  4. [4]
    The issue in relation to Adjudication Decision 2578814 concerns whether a pre-condition to the making of a valid adjudication decision depends upon the respondent to an adjudication application having been given a complete copy of the adjudication application made by the claimant. The resolution of this issue depends on the proper construction of s 79(4) and (6) of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (hereafter referred to as “the Act”).  Amendments to s 79 of the Act came into force shortly before the first respondent  made the application for adjudication which resulted in this Adjudication Decision. 

Background

  1. [5]
    On or about 23 August 2023 the applicant and the first respondent entered into a written contract in relation to a building project at Southport.  Under this contract the first respondent agreed to supply and install vinyl planks for the building.
  2. [6]
    Two applications pursuant to Chapter 3, Part 4 of the Act were made by the first respondent seeking payment of amounts of money it alleged were owed to it under the contract.
  3. [7]
    The first application was considered by the second respondent.  His decision (Adjudication Decision 2542677), made on 20 May 2024, purportedly determined that the adjudicated amount (the amount the applicant was to pay the first respondent) was $NIL; and, that the applicant was responsible for 40 per cent of the second respondent’s fees and expenses and the first respondent was responsible for 60 per cent of his fees and expenses.
  4. [8]
    The second application was considered by the third respondent.  His decision (Adjudication Decision 2578814), made on 12 July 2024, purportedly determined that the adjudicated amount (the amount the applicant was to pay the first respondent) was $135,208.91 including GST; that interest was payable on that amount at the rate of 14.35 per cent p.a. from 5 June 2024; and, that the applicant was responsible for 100 per cent of the third respondent’s fees and expenses.
  5. [9]
    The second and third respondents did not appear at the hearing. Correspondence provided on behalf of the second respondent informed the Court that he would abide the orders of the Court and that he did not resist the making of a declaration in relation to the adjudication decision he made.  The third respondent informed the Court by correspondence that he did not intend to actively participate in the proceedings and would abide the orders of the Court save as to any issue as to costs.  By order made on 6 August 2024 the fourth respondent was excused from attendance at the hearing save as to any issue of costs should such arise.

Adjudication Decision 2542677

  1. [10]
    The second respondent’s registration as an adjudicator lapsed on 18 May 2024.  This was two days prior to him making Adjudication Decision 2542677.  The applicant contends that as a consequence of the lapse in registration the second respondent could not make an adjudication decision.  The first respondent consents to the Court making a declaration that the Adjudication Decision is void because the second respondent was not a registered adjudicator under the Act as at 18 May 2024.  The first respondent also consents to an order requiring the fourth respondent to remove the Adjudication Decision from publication on its website. 
  2. [11]
    The orders concerning Adjudication Decision 2542677 will be substantially in accordance with draft orders submitted by the applicant and the first respondent.

Adjudication Decision 2578814

  1. [12]
    The facts set out in the next five paragraphs are not in dispute. 
  2. [13]
    On 11 June 2024, the first respondent through its solicitor applied to the fourth respondent for adjudication of a payment claim.  The solicitor deposed that he logged on to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) website and accessed the section that allowed for the commencement of a new adjudication application.  He entered information responsive to the prompts contained in the electronic form.  He uploaded 11 PDF files which comprised the following:
    1. 0-AA Claimant Submissions;
    2. 01-Ex A Payment Claim 4;
    3. 02-Ex B Payment Schedule;
    4. 03-Ex C Adjudicator Decision PC 3;
    5. Sub-contract 7;
    6. Sub-contract 6;
    7. Sub-contract 5;
    8. Sub-contract 4;
    9. Sub-contract 3;
    10. Sub-contract 2;
    11. Sub-contract 1.
  3. [14]
    Concerning the sub-contract documents, the solicitor deposed that the seven documents comprised the written contract entered into between the applicant and the first respondent.  He said that he uploaded the contract when prompted to do so by the requirement under that part of the electronic form headed “Contract and project details”.  Due to a data limit he uploaded the contract across seven different files.  He completed the declaration at the end of the electronic form, arranged for payment of the fee and submitted the form.
  4. [15]
    After submitting the adjudication application he received an email from the QBCC registry which contained a case number and attached a PDF file. The email said, “Please see attached PDF for a copy of your Adjudication form”. The solicitor deposed that the PDF file was not an exact copy of the electronic form he confronted when he was filling it in.  Under the heading “Contract and project details” the PDF file did not include the prompt asking for the upload of a copy of the written contract even though that prompt had appeared when he was completing the form.          
  5. [16]
    Later that day, the solicitor sent an email to the applicant’s solicitor and he attached a copy of the file sent to him by the registry along with all the documents listed at paragraph [13] above.  However, the email was not received by the applicant’s solicitor’s inbox, apparently due to the size of the email exceeding the size limit of the intended recipient’s server.  An automated email message was sent from the recipient’s server to the first respondent’s solicitor advising that the email he had sent had not been delivered.
  6. [17]
    On 13 June 2024, the first respondent’s solicitor sent emails to the applicant’s solicitor.  They were received by the applicant’s solicitor.  Each contained attachments, the contents of which comprised all of the documents listed at paragraph [13] above, apart from the sub-contract documents numbered 1 to 7.  One additional document was also attached.  It was a copy of the file sent by the registry, “00 BIF Adjudication Application Form”.  The first respondent accepts that the sub-contract documents numbered 1 to 7 were not included in the attachments sent on 13 June 2024. The applicant’s solicitor has deposed that among other emails and attachments received by her on 13 June 2024 was the email which attached a document entitled “00 BIF Adjudication Application Form”.  This document is annexed as an exhibit to her affidavit. 

Applicant’s submissions

  1. [18]
    The applicant submits that the adjudication decision made on 12 July 2024 is void and is liable to be set aside because the first respondent failed to comply with s 79(4)(a) of the Act.  The alleged non-compliance relied on is the first respondent’s failure, within four business days after making the adjudication application, to give the applicant a complete copy of the adjudication application and supporting submissions lodged with the fourth respondent.  The failure to give it the construction contract meant that the first respondent had not given the applicant a copy of the adjudication application.  The applicant’s position is that an adjudication application in the approved form[1] required a copy of the construction contract to be attached to a manual application or uploaded with an electronic application.  Relying on decisions of  this Court[2] and of the Supreme Court of New South Wales[3] the applicant contends that there must be strict compliance with the statutory provisions relevant to the adjudication process, a process requiring  a respondent be given a complete copy of all that constituted the adjudication application.  It is contended that the provision by the claimant (in this proceeding the claimant was the first respondent) of the document it received from the registry after it lodged the adjudication application did not constitute compliance in the absence of a complete copy of the application.  The applicant points out that the adjudicator had to decide the application having regard to, among other things, the contract.  To enable the applicant to furnish a response to the adjudicator the applicant had to know the contents of the adjudication application and any supporting submissions.  Unless a respondent knows what it has to respond to or deal with a respondent is not afforded what the Act provides should be afforded, namely, a specific timeframe to respond.[4] 
  2. [19]
    In Iris Broadbeach[5] one of the issues raised was whether the provision to a respondent of a copy of a document provided to the claimant by the registry was sufficient to satisfy the terms of what s 79(3) of the Act then required.  This requirement was that a claimant give a copy of the adjudication application to the respondent.  Williams J said:[6]

“Consistent with the authorities identified above, strict compliance is required to gain the benefits of the statutory process. This is especially so at the initiation of the process. The clear purpose is to give the recipient of the adjudication application all relevant information to know precisely where it stands and to make a decision whether to maintain the dispute or to make the payment claimed.

The statutory regime in the BIF Act displaces s 48A(1) of the AI Act and substantial compliance is not sufficient. This is especially so as the adjudication application establishes jurisdiction.

Here, a copy of the same adjudication application lodged by the Contractor with the QBCC registry needed to be given to the Principal. That was not done.

The differences between the Electronic Form and the QBCC PDF Form identified above are not trivial and the differences are such as to result in the copy of the QBCC PDF Form not being a ‘copy’ of the Electronic Form.” (Footnotes omitted)

  1. [20]
    The applicant submits that the consequence of the alleged failure to comply with s 79(4)(a) is that the third respondent had no jurisdiction to make the adjudication decision.

First respondent’s submissions

  1. [21]
    The first respondent accepts that the approved form required that a copy of the construction contract be uploaded with an electronic application.  The first respondent accepts that s 79(4)(a) obliged it to give the applicant a copy of the adjudication application within four business days of 11 June 2024.  The first respondent submits that it complied with s 79(4)(a) by providing the applicant with the document “00 BIF Adjudication Application Form” on 13 June 2024 and that the provision of it accorded with the expanded meaning of “copy” provided for in s 79(6).  The first respondent goes on to contend that s 79(4)(b) did not require that it provide the applicant with a copy of the contract.  It says s 79(4)(b) only relates to submissions, if any, and the contract was not a submission because it had to be lodged as part of the adjudication application and in accordance with the approved form.[7]  The first respondent goes on to submit that even if s 79(4)(a) required it to provide the applicant with the seven sub-contract documents, any failure to do this did not deprive the third respondent of jurisdiction to make the adjudication decision.  In view of the conclusion reached below it is unnecessary to consider this last submission.

Relevant statutory provisions

  1. [22]
    To ascertain the meaning of s 79(4) and (6) the starting point is the text, though at the same time having regard to context and purpose.[8]
  2. [23]
    A person (whom the Act calls the claimant) who is, or claims to be, entitled to a progress payment may give a payment claim to a person (whom the Act calls the respondent) who, under the relevant construction contract is, or may be liable to make the payment.[9]  The respondent must respond to the payment claim by giving the claimant a payment schedule.[10]  If the respondent does not pay the amount owed to the claimant in full the claimant may apply for adjudication of the payment claim under Part 4 of the Act.[11]
  3. [24]
    With the commencement of an amendment effected by s 95B of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 s 79 of the Act assumed its present form from 6 June 2024.  The parties are agreed that it is s 79 in its present form which applies to this case.  Section 79 provides as follows:
  1. “79
    Application for adjudication
  1. (1)
    A claimant may apply to the registrar for adjudication of a payment claim (an adjudication application) if—
  1. (a)
    the claimant is entitled to apply for adjudication under section 79(2)(b) because of a failure by the respondent to pay an amount owed to the claimant by the due date for the payment; or
  1. (b)
    the amount stated in the payment schedule, given in response to the payment claim, is less than the amount stated in the payment claim.
  1. (2)
    An adjudication application—
  1. (a)
    must be in the approved form; and
  1. (b)
    must be made within—
  1. (i)
    for an application relating to a failure to give a payment schedule and pay the full amount stated in the payment claim—30 business days after the later of the following days—
  1. (A)
    the day of the due date for the progress payment to which the claim relates;
  1. (B)
    the last day the respondent could have given the payment schedule under section 76; or
  1. (ii)
    for an application relating to a failure to pay the full amount stated in the payment schedule—20 business days after the due date for the progress payment to which the claim relates; or
  1. (iii)
    for an application relating to the amount stated in the payment schedule being less than the amount stated in the payment claim—30 business days after the claimant receives the payment schedule; and
  1. (c)
    must identify the payment claim and the payment schedule, if any, to which it relates; and
  1. (d)
    must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by regulation for the application.
  1. (3)
    The adjudication application may be accompanied by submissions relevant to the application.
  1. (4)
    The claimant must give the following documents to the respondent within 4 business days after making the adjudication application—
  1. (a)
    a copy of the adjudication application;
  1. (b)
    a copy of the submissions, if any, accompanying the application under subsection (3).
  1. (5)
    The registrar must, within 4 business days after the application is received, refer the application to a person eligible to be an adjudicator under section 80.
  1. (6)
    In this section—
  1. copy, of an adjudication application, includes a document containing details of the application given to the claimant by the registrar for the purpose of the claimant complying with the claimant’s obligation under subsection (4)(a).”
  1. [25]
    If an adjudicator accepts a referral made pursuant to s 79(5) the adjudicator is taken to have been appointed to decide the application.[12]  The respondent may give the adjudicator a response to the adjudication application[13] and include in it any relevant submissions in the response.[14]
  2. [26]
    An adjudicator must decide the adjudication application as quickly as possible and may seek further submissions from either the claimant or the respondent.[15]  The adjudicator’s task is to decide the amount of the progress payment, if any, to be paid by the respondent to the claimant and the date on which the amount became payable and the rate of interest payable.[16]  In deciding the adjudication application the adjudicator is only to consider the following matters:
    1. the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Act and, to the extent that they are relevant, the provisions of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991, Part 4A;
    2. the provisions of the relevant construction contract;
    3. the payment claim to which the application relates, together with all submissions, including relevant documents, that have been properly made by the claimant in support of the claim;
    4. the payment schedule, if any, to which the application relates, together with all submissions, including relevant documents, that have been properly made by the respondent in support of the schedule; and
    5. the results of any inspection carried out by the adjudicator of any matter to which the claim relates.[17]
  3. [27]
    Prior to the 2024 amendment s 79 was as follows:
  1. “79
    Application for adjudication
  1. (1)
    A claimant may apply to the registrar for adjudication of a payment claim (an adjudication application) if—
  1. (a)
    the claimant is entitled to apply for adjudication under section 78(2)(b) because of a failure by the respondent to pay an amount owed to the claimant by the due date for the payment; or
  1. (b)
    the amount stated in the payment schedule, given in response to the payment claim, is less than the amount stated in the payment claim.
  1. (2)
    An adjudication application—
  1. (a)
    must be in the approved form; and
  1. (b)
    must be made within—
  1. (i)
    for an application relating to a failure to give a payment schedule and pay the full amount stated in the payment claim—30 business days after the later of the following days—
  1. (A)
    the day of the due date for the progress payment to which the claim relates;
  1. (B)
    the last day the respondent could have given the payment schedule under section 76; or
  1. (ii)
    for an application relating to a failure to pay the full amount stated in the payment schedule—20 business days after the due date for the progress payment to which the claim relates; or
  1. (iii)
    for an application relating to the amount stated in the payment schedule being less than the amount stated in the payment claim—30 business days after the claimant receives the payment schedule; and
  1. (c)
    must identify the payment claim and the payment schedule, if any, to which it relates; and
  1. (d)
    must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by regulation for the application; and
  1. (e)
    may include the submissions relevant to the application the claimant chooses to include.
  1. (3)
    A copy of an adjudication application must be given to the respondent.
  1. (4)
    The registrar must, within 4 business days after the application is received, refer the application to a person eligible to be an adjudicator under section 80.”
  1. [28]
    It can be seen that the previous version of s 79 did not contain a definition of “copy”.
  2. [29]
    The purpose for the amendment of s 79 was explained in the explanatory notes which accompanied the third reading of the Bill which became the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024.  The objectives of the amendments, insofar as they concerned the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act, were twofold. One purpose was said to be to validate adjudication applications, subsequent decisions and actions thought to be affected by the decision in Iris Broadbeach[18] and the other purpose was said to be to clarify matters for future adjudication applications[19].  It is this second stated purpose that is of immediate relevance to the present case.  The Explanatory Notes stated that for applications lodged electronically with the registry the summary document issued to the person who made the application, whilst containing information submitted by an applicant, did not include all of the information which had been available on the online process.  It said that in Iris Broadbeach the Court found that the summary document provided by the registry did not meet the requirements of s 79(3) because it was not an exact copy of the online adjudication application form.  It said this decision raised the possibility that claims could be made that the summary documents given to respondents in purported compliance with s 79(3) were defective and “potential assertions that the subsequent adjudication decisions are also void and liable to be set aside”[20].  Under the heading “Achievement of the Objectives” the Explanatory Notes said:[21]

“The amendments clarify the requirements for making an adjudication application, including that an adjudication application may be accompanied by submissions, and that the respondent must be given a copy of the adjudication application (which can include a document generated by the Registrar for this purpose) and any submissions accompanying the application within 4 business days after making the application.  This will apply to all adjudication applications made after commencement.”

  1. [30]
    Under the heading “Notes on provisions” it was stated that:[22]

“Section 95B amends section 79 of the BIF Act to clarify the application requirements for adjudication.  New subsections clarify that the adjudication application may be accompanied by submissions relevant to the application.  They also clarify the documents which the claimant must give to the respondent within 4 business days of making the adjudication application; and that a copy of an adjudication application includes a document given to the claimant by the registrar for the purpose of the claimant complying with the abovementioned obligation.”

Disposition

  1. [31]
    In requiring that a copy of an adjudication application be given to a respondent s 79(4)(a), if considered on its own, can be understood to impose a requirement to provide a respondent with a duplicate or an exact likeness of the adjudication application which had been provided to the registrar.  However, s 79(4)(a) must be considered with s 79(6) because s 79(6) defines “copy” when the term is used in conjunction with “an adjudication application”.  The term includes a document containing details of the application given to the claimant by the registrar for the purpose of the claimant complying with the obligation under s 79(4)(a).  That obligation is to give a copy of the adjudication application to a respondent.      
  2. [32]
    The applicant submitted that s 79(6) is to be interpreted as requiring the claimant to give the respondent not just a copy of the adjudication application but also a copy of the document the claimant receives from the registrar.  The applicant submitted that the purpose of the provision is to ensure that the respondent to an adjudication application is given a copy of all the communications had between the claimant and the registrar. 
  3. [33]
    The correct construction of s 79(6) is that it is to be understood as enlarging the ambit of what constitutes a copy of an adjudication application rather than as enlarging the ambit of a claimant’s obligation under s 79(4)(a).  In providing that a copy of an adjudication application includes a document that is something other than an adjudication application s 79(6) discloses an intention to confer a meaning additional to the ordinary meaning of “copy”.[23]  This provision renders a document of a particular description (one containing details of the adjudication application) provided by a specified person (the registrar) to be a copy of the adjudication application for the purpose of the claimant satisfying the obligation imposed on it by s 79(4)(a).  Section 79(6) cannot sensibly be construed as enlarging the ambit of a claimant’s obligation under s 79(4)(a). 
  4. [34]
    Upon receiving the documents mentioned in s 79(4) the respondent to a payment claim can respond to the claim in accordance with the applicable time limit imposed by s 83.    
  5. [35]
    The applicant has not succeeded in demonstrating that the first respondent failed to comply with s 79(4).  On the undisputed evidence in this case the first respondent complied with s 79(4) when the first respondent’s solicitor gave the applicant’s solicitor the document given to him by the registrar, “00 BIF Adjudication Application Form”, on 13 June 2024.  The application for a declaration concerning Adjudication Decision 2578814 will be refused.
  6. [36]
    I make the following orders:
  1. It is declared that the adjudication decision of the second respondent dated 20 May 2024 in relation to adjudication application number 2542677 is void ab initio because the second respondent was not a registered adjudicator under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) at the time he purported to make the decision.
  2. The fourth respondent is ordered to remove the Adjudication Decision 2542677 from publication on its website.
  3. The application for a declaration in relation to Adjudication Decision 2578814 made by the third respondent on 12 July 2024 is refused.
  1. [37]
    I will hear the parties as to costs.      

Footnotes

[1]  Section 79(2)(a).

[2]Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 91 at p 16, Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] QSC 290 at [96]-[97] (“Irish Broadbeach”).

[3] Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd v Total Lifestyle Windows Pty Ltd (t/as Total Concept Group) [2017] NSWSC 194 at [57] and [59].

[4]  Section 83.

[5]  Supra.

[6]  At [96]-[99].

[7]  Section 79(2)(a).

[8] R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507 at 521 [33] and 545 [124], SZTAL v Minister for Immigration (2017) 262 CLR 362 at [14], CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408 and Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14B(1)and (2).

[9]  Section 75(1).

[10]  Section 76(1).

[11]  Section 78(1) and (2)(b).

[12]  Section 81(7).

[13]  Section 82(1).

[14]  Section 82(3).

[15]  Section 84(1) and (2)(b).

[16]  Section 88(1).

[17]  Section 88(2).

[18]  Supra.

[19] Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 Explanatory Notes pps 1 and 2.

[20]  Explanatory Notes, p 2.

[21]  Explanatory Notes, p 7.

[22]  Explanatory Notes, p 16.

[23]  See FCT v St Hubert’s Island Pty Ltd (In Liq) (1978) 138 CLR 210 at 216 as an example of “includes” manifesting a legislative intention to confer a meaning additional to the ordinary meaning.     

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension AU Pty Ltd ATF BD Hope Unit Trust & Ors

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension AU Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2024] QSC 235

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Copley J

  • Date:

    03 Oct 2024

  • Selected for Reporting:

    Editor's Note

Litigation History

EventCitation or FileDateNotes
Primary Judgment[2024] QSC 23503 Oct 2024-
Notice of Appeal FiledFile Number: CA 14858/2431 Oct 2024-

Appeal Status

Appeal Pending

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1997) 187 CLR 384
Cite 2 - (1997) 187 CLR 384
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v St Hubert's Island Pty Ltd (In liq) (1978) 138 CLR 210
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1978) 138 CLR 210
Cite 2 - (1978) 138 CLR 210
Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd(2023) 17 QR 361; [2023] QSC 290
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QSC 290
Cite 2 - [2023] QSC 290
Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 91
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QSC 91
Cite 2 - [2019] QSC 91
Parkview Constructions Pty Limited v Total Lifestyle Windows Pty Ltd t/a Total Concept Group [2017] NSWSC 194
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] NSWSC 194
Cite 2 - [2017] NSWSC 194
R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2019) 269 CLR 507
Cite 2 - (2019) 269 CLR 507
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2017) 262 CLR 362
Cite 2 - (2017) 262 CLR 362

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd(2023) 17 QR 361; [2023] QSC 2901 citation
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.