//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2025] QCA 264
appellant. Appeal allowed. Order 3 of the primary judge was set aside. The adjudication decision dated 12 July 2024 concerning application number 2578814 was declared void. The registrar was ordered to remove...
2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
The subcontractor had to give the head contractor copies of the submissions accompanying its adjudication application within four business days. Those materials included the seven files making up the subcontract. Although some documents were sent, the subcontract files were not included in the emails the head contractor received. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory requirement had not been met. Because the parties accepted that failure to comply with this requirement invalidated the adjudication decision, the Court declared that decision void and ordered it removed from the registrar’s website.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,373 words · generated 07/10/2026
The dispute arose from a subcontract for the supply and installation of vinyl planks. Platform Constructions Pty Ltd was the head contractor, and Fourth Dimension Au Pty Ltd ATF BD Hope Unit Trust was its subcontractor ([2]). Fourth Dimension made an adjudication application under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (the Act), seeking payment of amounts it alleged were owed under the subcontract ([3]).
The issue on appeal was not the merits of the payment claim. It was whether Fourth Dimension had complied with the statutory requirement to give Platform specified application documents within four business days after making the adjudication application. Platform argued that non-compliance invalidated the resulting adjudication decision ([4], [20], [22]).
On 11 June 2024, Fourth Dimension’s solicitor submitted the application through the QBCC website, uploading 11 PDF files. These included the Claimant Submissions, the payment claim, the payment schedule, an earlier adjudicator decision, and seven files that together comprised the subcontract ([13]). The QBCC registry then emailed the solicitor a PDF described as a copy of the adjudication form ([15]).
The solicitor attempted to email Platform’s solicitor that day with the registry PDF and the uploaded documents. The email was not delivered, apparently because its size exceeded the recipient server’s limit. An automated message notified the sender of the non-delivery ([16]). On 13 June, further emails reached Platform’s solicitor. Their attachments included the other uploaded documents, but not the seven subcontract files ([17]).
The Claimant Submissions document referred to the subcontract as a separate exhibit submitted with the application ([18]–[19]). Accordingly, the missing files were not merely unrelated background material. They were identified as the written subcontract relied on in the submissions.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It held that Fourth Dimension had not provided a complete copy of the submissions accompanying the application within the required period. Since the parties accepted that failure to comply with s 79(4) was fatal to the validity of the adjudication decision, the Court declared the decision void. It also ordered the registrar to remove the decision from publication on its website and awarded Platform its costs ([25]–[27]).
The statutory text before the Court was the amended s 79. The Court described s 79(4) as requiring the claimant to give the respondent, within four business days after making the application, “a copy of the adjudication application” and “a copy of the submissions, if any, accompanying the application under subsection (3)” ([10]). The appeal turned on the second requirement, in s 79(4)(b).
Platform had argued below that Fourth Dimension had failed to comply with s 79(4)(a), or alternatively with s 79(4)(b) ([20]). The primary judge rejected the first argument, reasoning that s 79(6) widened what could count as a “copy” of the application, rather than expanding what the claimant was obliged to provide under s 79(4)(a) ([21]). The Court of Appeal did not overturn that ruling. Instead, it allowed the appeal on the alternative argument, which the primary judge had not addressed ([22]).
The Court began its construction of “submissions” with the ordinary meaning of the word: “that which is submitted” or “something submitted for decision or consideration” ([23]). It saw no reason to give the word a narrow meaning in this statutory context. On that reading, “submissions” encompassed the documents uploaded with the application under subsection (3), not only a document containing written argument ([23]).
The Court also tested the result against a narrower, litigation-oriented sense of “submissions”: documents setting out factual and legal assertions relied on to obtain a particular result. Even under that reading, the seven subcontract files were part of the submissions. The Claimant Submissions expressly said the subcontract had been submitted as a separate exhibit. Without the files, Platform had not received the complete submission about the terms of the subcontract ([24]).
The Court added that the act of uploading the seven files as the subcontract itself impliedly submitted that those files were what they purported to be ([24]). Thus, the missing documents mattered under either interpretation. The Court’s reasoning did not depend solely on the breadth of the ordinary meaning. The link between the Claimant Submissions and the subcontract files independently supported the conclusion that the files formed part of the material submitted for consideration.
The communications history established the failure to provide the full set on time. The 11 June email was not delivered; the emails received on 13 June omitted the subcontract files ([16]–[17]). The Court concluded that, “[o]n any view of the facts”, Platform had not been provided with a complete version of the submissions accompanying the application ([25]). It therefore found non-compliance with s 79(4)(b) ([26]).
A further premise was common ground between the parties: if there was a failure to comply with s 79(4), that failure was fatal to the validity of the adjudication decision ([25]). The Court applied that agreed premise to its finding of non-compliance and granted the declaration and ancillary order sought ([26]–[27]). It did not need to resolve a contested argument about the legal consequence of non-compliance.
The judgment explains the legislative and judicial context for the amended provision. Before 6 June 2024, s 79 required a claimant to give a copy of the adjudication application to the respondent, but did not contain the later express requirement to provide a copy of accompanying submissions within four business days ([7]). The Court set out the earlier version of the section to explain this background.
In Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 290, Williams J had concluded that strict compliance with the statutory procedures was an essential prerequisite to an adjudicator’s jurisdiction. Her Honour also concluded that the earlier s 79(3) requirement called for the claimant to provide the application as filed, together with the documents filed as part of it. In that case, the claimant had supplied a registry PDF that was not a complete copy of the filed application, and the application was declared void ([8]).
The Act was subsequently amended by the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024. The explanatory note, as quoted by the Court, described an objective of validating impacted adjudication applications, decisions and actions, and clarifying matters for future applications ([9]). The amended s 79 expressly required the claimant to give the respondent both a copy of the application and a copy of accompanying submissions within four business days. It also defined “copy” of an application to include a document containing application details given to the claimant by the registrar for the purpose of compliance ([10]).
The Court of Appeal’s decision concerns the meaning and application of that amended provision. It held that s 79(4)(b) required provision of the uploaded documents that formed part of the submissions accompanying the application. The decision therefore demonstrates that supplying the registry document and some supporting material did not meet the separate obligation to provide a complete copy of the accompanying submissions in the circumstances before the Court ([23]–[26]).
The judgment does not set out a general ruling on every possible category of material that might accompany an application. Its conclusion was made in a case where documents had been uploaded with the application, the claimant’s written submissions expressly identified the subcontract files as a separate exhibit, and those files were not received by the respondent within time ([13], [17]–[19], [24]).
At [23], Bond JA states: “The ordinary meaning of ‘submission’ in this context is ‘that which is submitted’ or ‘something submitted for decision or consideration.’” In plain English, the Court treated “submissions” as potentially covering all material put forward with the application, rather than only written legal argument. It then applied that understanding directly: the term “would encompass all the documents which were submitted by way of being uploaded with the application under subsection (3)” ([23]).
At [24], the Court considers the alternative possibility that “submissions” might be understood more narrowly, as the documents containing assertions of fact and law relied on to obtain a result. It explains that the subcontract files still formed part of the relevant material because the Claimant Submissions referred to them as the written subcontract submitted as a separate exhibit. In ordinary terms, the respondent needed those files to see the complete material supporting the claimant’s account of the subcontract ([24]).
Also at [24], the Court says that uploading the files as together comprising the subcontract “must impliedly be taken to be a submission” that the documents were in fact what they were said to be. The point is that documents can contribute to a submission not only through express written argument, but also through the way the applicant presents them as evidence or as the document governing the parties’ relationship.
At [25], Bond JA concludes: “On any view of the facts the appellant was not provided with a complete version of the submissions which had accompanied the adjudication application.” This encapsulates the factual finding: the missing subcontract files meant the material received by Platform was incomplete.
At [26], the Court states that Fourth Dimension “failed to comply with s 79(4)(b)” and that the declaration and ancillary order should follow. The result depended on the statutory obligation, the incomplete delivery, and the parties’ common position that failure to comply with s 79(4) invalidated the decision.
The judgment is directly relevant to applications where a claimant uploads documents as part of an adjudication application and the respondent does not receive all of them within the four-business-day period in s 79(4). The central factual combination here was: the documents were uploaded with the application; the claimant’s written submissions identified them as an exhibit; and the respondent did not receive them in time ([13], [17]–[19]).
The reasoning may be especially significant where an applicant distinguishes between “submissions” as written argument and other uploaded material. The Court did not confine the statutory term to argument. It treated uploaded documents as within the term’s ordinary meaning, while also explaining why the subcontract files were part of the submissions even under a narrower, litigation-oriented construction ([23]–[24]).
The case also illustrates the relevance of delivery evidence. The first attempted email was not delivered, and the sender received an automated notification. The later emails were delivered but omitted the seven subcontract files ([16]–[17]). The holding turned on what was actually provided to the respondent within the statutory period, not merely on what the claimant had uploaded to the QBCC system or attempted to send.
The decision should be read with its stated limits. The Court addressed the specific amended s 79(4)(b) requirement and the materials in this application. It did not decide every question about which documents in every adjudication application count as accompanying submissions. Nor did it need to decide a disputed question about the consequence of non-compliance: the parties accepted that such a failure was fatal to validity ([11], [25]).
The judgment itself does not discuss any later judicial treatment of Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension Au Pty Ltd. It was delivered on 19 December 2025, and the supplied text contains no subsequent cases applying, distinguishing, or otherwise considering it. No claim about later treatment can therefore be grounded in this judgment.
The authorities it does discuss are earlier authorities. In particular, it recounts Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 290 as part of the history that preceded the 2024 amendment ([8]–[10]). It explains that the amendment added an express obligation to give the respondent a copy of accompanying submissions and a definition of “copy” for the application itself ([10]). The Court’s ruling under the amended provision addresses the obligation as enacted after that change.
The judgment also refers in a footnote to cases relied on in Iris Broadbeach concerning strict compliance and adjudicator jurisdiction, including Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd, Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd, Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd v Total Lifestyle Windows Pty Ltd, and Karam Group Pty Ltd as Trustee for Karam (No. 1) Family Trust v HCA Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors (footnote 1). The Court does not independently analyse those cases in its reasons. Its operative construction and application of s 79(4)(b) are set out at [23]–[26].
The judgment leaves open how far “submissions” extends in situations that differ from the facts before it. It holds that the term encompassed all documents uploaded with this application, and that the subcontract files were submissions under both a broad and a narrower reading because the claimant expressly relied on them as an exhibit ([23]–[24]). It does not exhaustively define the boundary between material accompanying an application and material that might be uploaded for another purpose.
The Court also does not determine how the amended s 79(6) definition of a “copy” of the application interacts with every category of attachment. The primary judge had held that s 79(6) enlarged the meaning of “copy” for s 79(4)(a), rather than expanding the claimant’s underlying obligation. The appeal was resolved under s 79(4)(b), so the Court did not need to develop a broader analysis of subsection (6) ([21]–[23]).
Another question not litigated to a conclusion was the legal consequence of non-compliance. The parties accepted that failure to comply with s 79(4) was fatal to validity ([25]). The Court applied that common ground; it did not separately analyse competing submissions about whether, or in what circumstances, a failure might have a different consequence.
Finally, the case does not decide what proof of delivery is sufficient in other circumstances, or how a sender’s knowledge of a failed transmission affects compliance. The Court’s factual conclusion was that the 11 June email was not delivered and that the emails received on 13 June omitted the subcontract files ([16]–[17]). The statutory focus in this case was whether the required material was provided to the respondent within the specified time.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.
Source: Queensland Judgments (Supreme Court Library Queensland) (www.queenslandjudgments.com.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension Au Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 264
PARTIES: PLATFORM CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD / ACN 632 191 872 / (appellant) / v / FOURTH DIMENSION AU PTY LTD / ACN 658 408 247 / ATF BD HOPE UNIT TRUST / (first respondent) / JONATHAN SIVE (ADJUDICATION REGISTRATION NO. J1099713) / (second respondent) / REGISTRAR APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 150 OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY FAIRNESS (SECURITY PAYMENT) ACT 2017 / (third respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 14858 of 2024 / SC No 9648 of 2024
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 235 (Copley J)
DELIVERED ON: 19 December 2025
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 23 April 2025
JUDGES: Mullins P and Bond and Boddice JJA
ORDERS: **1.****Order 3 of the learned primary judge made on 3 October 2024 is set aside.****2.In lieu thereof:(a)It is declared that the adjudication decision of the second respondent dated 12 July 2024 in relation to the first respondent’s adjudication application number 2578814 is void.(b)****It is ordered that the third respondent remove from publication on its website, the adjudication decision referred to in the previous subparagraph.****3.**The first respondent must pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the originating application at first instance below, including any reserved costs.
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the appellant was the head contractor and the first respondent a subcontractor under a subcontract for a building project – where the first respondent made an adjudication application under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 claiming payment of amounts alleged to be owed to it under the contract – where s 79(4) of the Act required that a claimant provide particular documents to the respondent within four business days after making the adjudication application – where the first respondent failed to do so – where the appellant sought a declaration that the adjudication decision was void on the basis that the first respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Act – whether the primary judge was correct to refuse the application / Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), s 79 / Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 290, considered / Syntech Resources Pty Ltd v Peter Campbell Earthmoving (Aust) Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 293, cited
COUNSEL: B E Codd, with C H Matthews, for the appellant / M D Ambrose KC, with K T Grimshaw, for the first respondent
SOLICITORS: Wood L&M Solutions for the appellant / Baker Merz Lawyers for the first respondent
MULLINS P: I agree with Bond JA.
BOND JA: The appellant was the head contractor and the first respondent a subcontractor under a subcontract for the supply and installation of vinyl planks for a building project.
The first respondent made an adjudication application under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (the Act) claiming payment of amounts alleged to be owed to it under the contract. The third respondent, who was the registrar appointed under the Act, referred the adjudication application to the second respondent as an adjudicator under the Act. The second respondent made what purported to be an adjudication decision under the Act which favoured the first respondent.
Before the primary judge the appellant sought a declaration that the second respondent’s adjudication decision was void, together with certain ancillary relief. The appellant founded its application upon the contention that the first respondent had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of s 79(4) of the Act that a claimant under the Act provide particular documents to a respondent within four business days after making the adjudication application. That failure was said to go to the validity of the adjudicator’s decision.
The primary judge refused the application. By the present appeal the appellant seeks to overturn his Honour’s refusal. It seeks to have this court make the declaration which had been sought below and to make an ancillary order that the third respondent remove the adjudication decision from its website.
For reasons which follow, the appeal should be allowed, with costs. The orders sought by the appellant should be made.
The theoretical basis of the contention for invalidity
“79 Application for adjudication
A claimant may apply to the registrar for adjudication of a payment claim (an adjudication application) if –
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
the amount stated in the payment schedule, given in response to the payment claim, is less than the amount stated in the payment claim.
An adjudication application –
must be in the approved form; and
must be made within –
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 –
the day of the due date for the progress payment to which the claim relates;
the last day the respondent could have given the payment schedule under section 76; or
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
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
must identify the payment claim and the payment schedule, if any, to which it relates; and
must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by regulation for the application; and
may include the submissions relevant to the application the claimant chooses to include.
A copy of an adjudication application must be given to the respondent.
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.”
In Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 290, Williams J followed previous authority to conclude that it was an essential prerequisite to the jurisdiction of an adjudicator under the Act that the claimant had strictly complied with the procedures under the Act.1 That authority supported the conclusion that an adjudication decision obtained without that strict compliance could not be regarded as a valid decision under the Act. Her Honour concluded that proper compliance with s 79(3) of the Act required the claimant to give the respondent a copy of the adjudication application as filed, together with all the documents filed as part of it.2 In the case before her Honour the claimant had given the respondent only a document returned to it by the registry (referred to in the case as “the QBCC PDF Form”) which was not a complete copy of the document as filed.3 The consequence was that the adjudication application was declared to be void.4
In response to that decision, the Act was amended by the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024. The explanatory note to that Act recorded that the objective of the then Bill amongst other things was:
“to amend the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (BIF Act) to validate impacted adjudication applications, subsequent decisions and actions, and clarify matters for future adjudication applications.”
“79 Application for adjudication
A claimant may apply to the registrar for adjudication of a payment claim (an adjudication application) if –
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
the amount stated in the payment schedule, given in response to the payment claim, is less than the amount stated in the payment claim.
An adjudication application –
must be in the approved form; and
must be made within –
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 –
the day of the due date for the progress payment to which the claim relates;
the last day the respondent could have given the payment schedule under section 76; or
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
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
must identify the payment claim and the payment schedule, if any, to which it relates; and
must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by regulation for the application.
The adjudication application may be accompanied by submissions relevant to the application.
The claimant must give the following documents to the respondent within 4 business days after making the adjudication application –
a copy of the adjudication application;
a copy of the submissions, if any, accompanying the application under subsection (3).
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.
In this section –
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).”
The factual background
On 11 June 2024, the first respondent through its solicitor applied to the second respondent for adjudication of a payment claim.
The solicitor 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, including by uploading the following 11 pdf files:0-AA Claimant Submissions;01-Ex A Payment Claim 4;02-Ex B Payment Schedule;03-Ex C Adjudicator Decision PC 3;(under the part of the electronic form headed “Contract and project details”) the written subcontract between the appellant and the first respondent, which due to a data limit took the form of 7 separate pdf files.
The solicitor completed the declaration at the end of the electronic form, arranged for payment of the fee and submitted the form with the uploaded files.
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.
Later that day (11 June 2024), the solicitor sent an email to the appellant’s solicitor and he attached a copy of the file sent to him by the registry along with all the documents which had been uploaded. However, the email was not received by the appellant’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.
On 13 June 2024, the first respondent’s solicitor sent emails to the appellant’s solicitor. They were received by the appellant’s solicitor. Each contained attachments, the contents of which comprised all of the documents which had been uploaded, except the 7 pdf files containing the subcontract. One additional document was also attached. It was a copy of the file sent by the registry, “00 BIF Adjudication Application Form”.
The “Claimant Submissions” document which the first respondent’s solicitor had uploaded on 11 June 2024 and provided to the appellant’s solicitor on 13 June 2024 was a 30-page document which advanced, amongst other things, a number of submissions by reference to the terms of the subcontract between the first respondent and the appellant. Notably the document left no ambiguity as to what the claimant submitted were the terms of the subcontract because at paragraph [11] the “Claimant Submissions” document asserted:
“On 29 August 2023, [the appellant] entered into a Subcontract with [the first respondent] for the Vinyl Floors package at the project ‘Imperial Square - Stage One. 59 Meron Street, Southport, Gold Coast’ (Separate Exhibit submitted with the QBCC Adjudication Application).”
Consideration
The appellant argued before the primary judge that the first respondent had not properly complied with s 79(4)(a) or alternatively that the first respondent had not properly complied with s 79(4)(b).
The appellant’s first argument was correctly rejected by the primary judge in the following terms:
“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’. 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).”
The primary judge did not deal with the appellant’s alternative argument, which had been that if the obligation in s 79(4)(a) did not require the provision of all the attachments to the adjudication application to be delivered to the appellant within time then s 79(4)(b) did.
The appellant’s alternative argument was correct. The first respondent’s obligation in s 79(4)(b) was to give to the appellant within 4 business days after making the adjudication application a copy of the submissions, if any, accompanying the application under subsection (3). The ordinary meaning of “submission” in this context is “that which is submitted”5 or “something submitted for decision or consideration.6 There is no reason to construe the word narrowly.7 In the present case “submissions” would encompass all the documents which were submitted by way of being uploaded with the application under subsection (3). The first respondent did not comply with s 79(4)(b) because it did not give all those documents to the appellant.
The same conclusion would be reached even if “submission” was interpreted more narrowly in the way a litigation lawyer might interpret it, namely as the documents containing the various assertions of fact and law relied upon to achieve a contended-for result. In this case the “Claimant Submissions” document had submitted that the subcontract was the written subcontract document which had been submitted in the form of the 7 separate pdf files. Unless the appellant was given those files it would not have received the complete submissions made by the first respondent. And even if the assertion in the “Claimant Submissions” document had not been explicitly made, the act of uploading the 7 separate pdf files as together comprising the subcontract must impliedly be taken to be a submission that the documents provided and purporting to be the subcontract were in fact what they were said to be. Unless the appellant was given those files it would not have that submission.
On any view of the facts the appellant was not provided with a complete version of the submissions which had accompanied the adjudication application. As has been mentioned, it was common ground between the parties that if there had been a failure to comply with s 79(4) that would be fatal to the validity of the adjudication decision.
I conclude that the first respondent failed to comply with s 79(4)(b) and accordingly the declaration and ancillary order sought by the appellant should be made.
Conclusion
The following orders should be made:Order 3 of the learned primary judge made on 3 October 2024 is set aside.In lieu thereof:(i)It is declared that the adjudication decision of the second respondent dated 12 July 2024 in relation to the first respondent’s adjudication application number 2578814 is void.(ii)It is ordered that the third respondent remove from publication on its website, the adjudication decision referred to in the previous subparagraph.The first respondent must pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the originating application at first instance below, including any reserved costs.
BODDICE JA: I agree with Bond JA.
Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 290 at [66]-[69] and see Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v SHA Premier Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 2 QR 190 at [12], [21]; Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd (2010) 78 NSWLR 393 at [209]; Parkview Constructions Pty Ltd v Total Lifestyle Windows Pty Ltd (t/as Total Concept Group) [2017] NSWSC 194 at [51]; Karam Group Pty Ltd as Trustee for Karam (No. 1) Family Trust v HCA Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QSC 290 at [45]. ↩
Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 290 at [88], [94]. ↩
Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 290 at [89], [95], [99]. ↩
Iris Broadbeach Business Pty Ltd v Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 290 at [101]-[102], [194]. ↩
Macquarie Dictionary, online, “submission”, meaning 4. ↩
Oxford English Dictionary, online, “submission”, meaning I.2.a. ↩
Cf Syntech Resources Pty Ltd v Peter Campbell Earthmoving (Aust) Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 293 per Daubney J at [32]. ↩
Platform Constructions Pty Ltd
Fourth Dimension Au Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 264
(2010) 78 NSWLR 393
Appeal allowed. Order 3 of the primary judge was set aside. The adjudication decision dated 12 July 2024 concerning application number 2578814 was declared void. The registrar was ordered to remove the decision from publication on its website. The first respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and originating application, including reserved costs.