October 7, 2025
Welcome to the October edition of Projects & Construction Monthly.
This edition addresses:
- Recent Construction News;
- Case Summary: Pico Play Pty Ltd v Coast Entertainment Operations Ltd [2025] QSC 227;
- LPC Lawyers’ recently completed article ‘Sharing is Caring: Gainshare and Painshare Payment Models’; and
- Opportunities to join the LPC Lawyers’ team.
Recent Construction News
Completion of Adelaide Street Tunnel
On 29 September 2025, the underground Adelaide Street tunnel officially opened after over two years of construction.
The 213-metre tunnel provides a dedicated connection for busways between North Quay and King George Square and will alleviate congestion in the Brisbane CBD.
Around 1,4000 bus and metro trips are expected to run through the tunnel each weekday
Beams Road Overpass Opens
After three years of construction, the Beams Road overpass in Carseldine opened for locals and commuters on 2 September 2025.
Beams Road connects Gympie and Sandgate Roads and crosses the Redcliffe rail line.
The overpass will improve safety for all road users, reduce traffic congestion and improve connectivity for people walking and cycling.
From late September, work will begin on a second bridge.
Flood Resilience Road Works in Far North Queensland
Construction works have been announced to improve resilience on eight Far North Queensland state-controlled roads damaged by ex-Tropical Cyclone Jaser.
The betterment works include improving pavement resilience and sealing over seven kilometres of existing gravel on Forsayth Road, constructing six additional flood ways on the Burke Developmental Road, improving drainage on the Mulligan Highway and improving drainage and slope resilience on the Captain Cook Highway.
The betterment works will be delivered simultaneously with current reconstruction projects, with the betterment works set to commence in late 2025 to early 2026.
Case Summary: Pico Play Pty Ltd v Coast Entertainment Operations Ltd [2025] QSC 227
The judgement of Pico Play Pty Ltd v Coast Entertainment Operations Ltd [2025] QSC 227 was delivered on 9 September 2025. This case illustrates that the question of whether a party has undertaken building work is determined by objective contract construction, not by the party’s later conduct or ambiguous wording in the contract.
Facts
Pico Play Pty Ltd (‘Pico’) and Coast Entertainment Operations Ltd (‘Coast’) were parties to a written contract, executed on 31 October 2023. Pico was engaged to design, manufacture, supply and deliver themed elements for rides in the new Rivertown precinct at Dreamworld.
The Contract price was $4,148,550 for design, engineering and supply to the site (Portion A). Exhibit C to the contract also referred to a separate “Installation Phase” priced at $1,260,950, but this work was later subcontracted out to Herron Coorey Pty Ltd under a separate agreement.
Pico delivered goods in December 2024. On 28 January 2025, Pico served Coast with their final payment claim for $555,890.26. The payment claim was made under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (‘BIF Act’). Subsequently, Coast served Pico with a payment schedule which disputed any amount owing under the payment claim.
Pico applied for adjudication of the payment claim on 25 March 2025. Christopher Taylor was appointed as the adjudicator. On 22 April 2025, the adjudication decision was made, and Pico’s application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on two grounds:
- Pico had “undertaken to carry out building work when it entered into the [c]ontract in circumstances where it did not hold the relevant class of licence permitting it to lawfully do so” (at [3]). Pico had thereby contravened s 42(1) of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the QBCC Act’) and accordingly, would have no contractual right to be paid for the performance of the work. Consequently, the adjudicator would have no jurisdiction; and
- The payment claim lacked a valid “reference date” under s 67 the BIF Act.
Coast conceded the reference date ground but maintained that the decision was valid because of the s 42 of the QBCC Act reasoning.
Pico applied to the court for a declaration that the adjudicator’s decision is void because of jurisdictional error. Pico asserted jurisdictional error in respect of each ground.
Issue
The main issue was whether, by entering into the contract, Pico did undertake to carry out “building work” under s 42(1) of the QBCC Act. If yes, the contract is unenforceable, and the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. If no, the adjudicator’s decision is flawed and would be void.
The term “building work” is defined broadly in Schedule 2 of the QBCC Act. Coast limited its argument to rely on the part of the definition contained in paragraph (f), which provides that “building work” means “the preparation of plans or specifications for the performance of building work”. Thus, the question became whether Pico’s obligation to provide “installation instructions” in clause 10.2 of the contract amounts to preparing plans for the performance of building work.
A subsequent issue that arose was whether the adjudication decision could be partly severed under s 101(4) of the BIF Act or whether it was it wholly void.
Decision
Kelly J elucidated that the existence of a valid construction contract is a prerequisite to the exercise of an adjudicator’s jurisdiction under the BIF Act and the existence of a valid construction contract is a matter of objective jurisdictional fact.
Kelly J found that on proper construction, the contract was limited to design, engineering and supply (Portion A). The “Installation Phase” (Portion B), involving fixing goods onsite and preparing construction plans, was not part of Pico’s obligations under the contract. The work was separately dealt with in the subcontract.
The “installation instructions” required in clause 10.2 of the contract were limited, given the local context of the contract. Kelly J articulated that the “installation instructions” meant instructions necessary to install, in the sense of arranging, assembling or placing the components parts into their proper position which instructions were part of Pico’s “Confidential and/or Proprietary Information” (at [49]). Therefore, “installation instructions” did not extend to the preparation of plans or specifications for the performance of building work and accordingly, Pico had not undertaken to carry out building work under the contract.
Further, Kelly J held that the adjudicator’s first ground (s 42 of the QBCC Act) involved jurisdictional error (at [37]). This was principally because he relied on drawings produced by Pico after the conclusion of the contract. Moreover, the adjudicator was found to have misinterpreted drawings as containing details for construction, that expressly said “not to be used for… construction”. In addition, the adjudicator’s reasoning for the ground was contradictory.
Ultimately, the entire adjudication decision was void. Severance under s 101(4) of the BIF Act was not possible because no valid part of the decision remained.
Read the full judgement here.
LPC Lawyers’ Recently Completed Article ‘Sharing is Caring: Gainshare and Painshare Payment Models’
“Adversarial” style contracting models dominate the Australian constructing industry. Payment mechanisms in construction contracts traditionally involve lump sums or a schedule of rates.
Increasingly parties are using alternative contracting approaches in an attempt to achieve better project outcomes. Parties have been implementing collaborative or co-operation principles into adversarial contracts, adopting collaborative contracting models (such as, no-blame regimes) and utilising a payment model which includes a Gainshare and Painshare payment model.
This article explores the differences between the two styles of contracting and provides some practical considerations if parties choose to go down the collaborative contracting route.
Read the full article here.
LPC Lawyers’ Continued Expansion
LPC Lawyers is looking to hire with opportunities for growth in our expanding practice.
Litigation Lawyers (1-3 years PAE)
Working closely with an ex-top tier partner, this role is ideal for a candidate who is highly motivated and has experience in drafting correspondence, simple pleadings, briefs for Counsel, and some client advisory work.
For more information about our current opportunities visit our website here or to apply, please email your resume and cover letter to Jenna at Jenna@lpclawyers.com.