Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 SEPTEMBER 2009

Decisions Of Interest – Security For Payment

The Supreme Court of Queensland in this case (“Nebmas Pty Ltd –v– Subdivide Pty Ltd”, 1 May 2009), examined whether certain provisions of Sections 21(2) and 21(3) of the “Building and Construction Industry Payments Act (2004)”(Qld), which relate to the role/decision of an adjudicator of a dispute, are mandatory or “an essential precondition” for the existence of an adjudicator’s determination.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

The Supreme Court of Queensland in this case (Nebmas Pty Ltd –v– Subdivide Pty Ltd, 1 May 2009), examined whether certain provisions of Sections 21(2) and 21(3) of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act (2004)(Qld), which relate to the role/decision of an adjudicator of a dispute, are mandatory or "an essential precondition" for the existence of an adjudicator's determination. Those experienced in the area will know that the phrase "an essential precondition" is particularly important when dealing with matters where it is alleged that the adjudicator has acted without jurisdiction. Acting without jurisdiction is one of the few occasions when an adjudicator's decision will be voided.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from