In Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension Au Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 264, the Court (Bond JA, Mullins P and Boddice JA agreeing) upheld an appeal and made orders declaring an adjudication decision void in circumstances where the claimant failed to provide the respondent with a complete version of the submissions which had accompanied the adjudication application as required by s 79(4)(b) of the BIF Act.
Platform entered into subcontract with Fourth Dimension for the supply and installation of vinyl planks for a building project. Fourth Dimension made an adjudication application under the BIF Act via its solicitor. The solicitor subsequently sent Platform's solicitor the file received from the registry and the uploaded documents, except for the construction contract, and Fourth Dimension's submissions made reference to the contract as a "separate exhibit. Nonetheless, Fourth Dimension obtained a decision in its favour. Platform commenced proceedings seeking a declaration that the decision was void on the basis that Fourth Dimension failed to comply with the mandatory requirements in s 79(4) of the BIF Act which required it to provide particular documents to Platform within 4 business days of making the application. The primary judge dismissed the proceedings. Platform appealed.
The Court considered the version of s 79 that was in force prior to June 2024 and the decision in Iris Broadbeach Business v Descon Group Australia which had been held that strict compliance was an essential prerequisite to the jurisdiction of an adjudicator under the BIF Act, and an adjudication decision obtained without strict compliance could not be regarded as a valid decision. This included the claimant giving the respondent a copy of the application as filed, together with all documents filed as part of it. The Court noted that in response to the decision in Iris Broadbeach the BIF Act was amended to "validate impacted adjudication applications, subsequent decisions and actions, and clarify matters for future adjudication applications".
The parties agreed that it was a condition of validity that Fourth Dimension strictly comply with s 79(4). Platform argued that it had not and the Court held that this was correct. Under s 79(4)(b) Fourth Dimension was required to give Platform the "submissions" which encompasses all documents submitted by way of upload with the application. The same conclusion was reached if submissions was interpreted "narrowly", and on any view of the facts Platform was not provided with a complete version of the submissions which was fatal to the validity of the decision.