December 1, 2025
Recently in Bridgeman Agencies Pty Ltd v S.E. QLD Plumbing & Drainage Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 167, the Supreme Court considered the scope and application of s 68(1)(a) Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (‘BIFA’) regarding the identification of construction work or related goods and services in a payment claim.
FACTS
Bridgeman Agencies (‘the Applicant’) was the contractor under a head contract for a project and engaged S.E. Qld Plumbing & Drainage (‘the First Respondent’) under two subcontracts to perform hydraulic services works. On 22 September 2024, the First Respondent issued a payment claim (‘the Fourth Payment Claim’) for a sum of $180,310.94, in which the Applicant responded with a payment schedule on 8 October 2024. An adjudication application was then lodged in respect of the Fourth Payment Claim where the adjudicator (‘the Second Respondent’) determined that the amount of $103,509.44 was payable by the Applicant to the First Respondent.
The Applicant subsequently applied to the Supreme Court for declaratory relief that the decision be set aside or declared void for want of jurisdiction, contending that the Fourth Payment Claim failed to satisfy the statutory definition of a ‘payment claim’ under s 68 BIFA. Specifically, it alleged that the disputed payment claim did not identify the relevant construction work or related goods and services or, alternatively, to the extent that the payment claim relied upon percentages to characterise the scope of completed work, was not an adequate identification of the work to which the progress payment related.
Nature of the Payment Claims
Three earlier payment claims were issued by the First Respondent, each accompanied by detailed worksheets in an identical format. The Applicant issued payment schedules and paid those claims. The worksheet attached to the Fourth Payment Claim lists contract items and variations, with a column for ‘percentage completed’. Relevantly, Items 11 & 12 were comprehensively and expressly described in the subcontract’s Scope of Works (Annexure B). Variations (Items 22, 24-28 & 30) were each tied to previously emailed variation worksheets describing the nature of the works and the manner of calculation.
DECISION
In dismissing the originating application, the Court refused to declare the Second Respondent’s adjudication decision void, and costs were reserved.
Statutory Framework
s 68(1)(a) BIFA defines a payment claim for a progress payment as a written document that “identifies the construction work or related goods and services to which the progress payment relates”. Indeed, the purpose of BIFA is to facilitate payment for building and construction works completed, which is achieved by granting an entitlement to progress payments and by establishing a procedure for making and responding to payment claims.
Can background / contextual documents be used to ‘identify’ the work?
Relying on MWB Everton Park Pty Ltd v Devcon Building Co Pty Ltd,[1] Kelly J reiterated that courts adopt a practical and not overly technical approach to whether a document ‘identifies’ the work (emphasis added). While the standard is “relatively undemanding”, the work must be identified sufficiently to enable a respondent’s reasonable comprehension of the basis of the claim (i.e., an objective assessment).
Further, it is a settled principle that the parties’ background knowledge from past dealings and exchanged documentation is relevant. Payment claims identifying works at a high-level, therefore, may nonetheless be sufficient for the purposes of s 68(1)(a) BIFA because they refer to work already described in earlier materials such as the contract scope or previous variation quotes.
The Court distinguished Baxbex Pty Ltd v Bickle,[2] as relied upon by the Applicant, which is the authority for where a payment claim merely listed invoice numbers and amounts without identifying the underlying work rather than supporting the proposition that a payment claim is invalid whenever it refers to documents (e.g., invoices) that are not attached. On the facts, Kelly J held that Items 11 & 12 were effectively shorthand references to detailed scope items in Annexure B, and the variation items clearly referred to previously exchanged variation worksheets.
Use & Effect of Percentages in Payment Claims
Kelly J accepted that in some factual contexts, percentages alone can be insufficient to identify the construction work. If, however, the claim is “working off a zero base” (meaning that an item is being valued / claimed for the first time from 0%) or, for instance, the nature of the work is discernible and uncomplicated (e.g., the only concreting required is for a driveway), then stating “50% of the concreting” in the payment claim may suffice in identifying the work.
His Honour adopted an item-by-item approach in assessing whether the First Respondent’s use of percentages sufficiently identify the particular work:
- For Items 11, 12, 25 & 26, stating ‘5%’, ‘25%’, ‘approximately 20%’ or ‘approximately 14%’ of large, composite works did not reveal which part of the work had specifically been done. Hence, those percentages alone failed to sufficiently identify the particular work;
- For Items 27, 28 and 30, which claimed 100% of the work, earlier detailed worksheets had already described the entire work so claiming 100% clearly identified the work complete; and
- For Item 24, which claimed about 85% from a zero base and was discrete work in the sense that it was “wholly concerned with the material and labour differences between changing from poly pits to concrete pits”, the percentage did sufficiently identify the work and the basis of the claim.
Implications of Some Non-Compliance & Jurisdiction
Kelly J adopted the approach in Niclin Constructions Pty Ltd v Robotic Steel Fab Pty Ltd,[3] and Baguley Build Pty Ltd v Olcon Concrete & Construction Pty Ltd,[4] namely, that s 88 BIFA (i.e., statutory functions of an adjudicator) remains “the correct point from which to commence when considering the issue of jurisdictional error”. While a valid exercise of adjudicative jurisdiction is contingent on the adjudicator considering the matters in s 88(2) BIFA, including the payment claim, this does not require the adjudicator to reach “what is objectively the correct conclusion on the questions of fact or law”.
Drawing from Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport,[5] which concerned the NSW equivalent of s 68 BIFA, Kelly J affirmed the demarcation of “basic and essential requirements” (e.g., the existence of a payment claim) from more detailed content requirements in s 13(2) Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (1999) (NSW) / s 68(1) BIFA. Strict compliance with all detailed requirements is not essential to an adjudicator’s determination – what is essential is compliance with basic requirements, a bona fide attempt to exercise power, and no substantial denial of natural justice.
Following Bond J’s approach in E Home Construction Pty Ltd v GCB Constructions Pty Ltd,[6] and consistent with Brodyn, Kelly J held that the entirety of the payment claim must be considered. Although some line items were insufficiently identified, the bulk of the payment claim (i.e., Items 24, 27, 28 & 30) clearly identified the work and accounted for approximately $161,000 of the total claim. Given that the Fourth Payment Claim was properly characterised as a valid ‘payment claim’ under BIFA, notwithstanding some defective components, no jurisdictional error was established.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
This case confirms that the identification of construction work in a payment claim is to be assessed objectively and in light of the parties’ contractual and documentary background, rather than merely confined to the face of the claim. Percentages can be insufficient where they relate to broad, composite scopes, but may suffice where applied to discrete or zero-base works. Finally, partial non-compliance with detailed content requirements for a BIFA payment claim will not inevitably deprive an adjudicator of their adjudicative jurisdiction.
Lamont Project & Construction Lawyers
The Lamont Project & Construction Lawyers team has extensive knowledge of the BIFA and considerable experience preparing valid payment claims. With this knowledge and expertise, Lamont Project & Construction Lawyers can provide the required support and advice for matters of all scopes and sizes.
If you would like to discuss any matters raised in this article as it relates to your specific circumstances, please contact Lamont Project & Construction Lawyers.
The content of this article is for information purposes only and does not discuss every important topic or matter of law, and it is not to be relied upon as legal advice. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your specific circumstances.
Contact: Peter Lamont
Email: peter@lpclawyers.com
Phone: (07) 3248 8500
Address: Level 2, 349 Coronation Drive, Milton Qld 4064
Postal Address: PO Box 1133, Milton Qld 4064
[1] [2024] QCA 94.
[2] [2009] QSC 194.
[3] (2023) 16 QR 336.
[4] [2025] QSC 126.
[5] (2004) 61 NSWLR 421.
[6] [2020] QSC 291.