Court backs SOPA

Bright Days Herston Pty Ltd v ATG Project & Property Solutions Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 147

FACTS

Bright Days (the Principal) engaged ATG (the Contractor) to design and construct a childcare centre under a contract valued at $11 million. ATG served a payment claim for approximately $1.32 million. The Superintendent certified $782,738, while Bright Days’ payment schedule proposed only $71,158. ATG lodged an adjudication application under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (BIF Act).

After the first adjudicator declined to proceed due to a potential conflict, the Registrar appointed a second adjudicator, who awarded ATG just over $1 million. Bright Days challenged the decision, arguing jurisdictional error on two grounds:

1. The first adjudicator’s refusal to decide was itself a “decision” under the Act, invalidating the referral.
2. The second adjudicator failed to consider mandatory submissions, including Bright Days’ evidence of a subsequent payment.

ISSUE

Was the second adjudicator’s decision affected by jurisdictional error due to (a) an invalid referral, or (b) failure to consider mandatory submissions?

FINDING…