JTS Trading Group Pty Ltd v Allroads Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] QSC 211

Michael Creedon  |  Clare Turner | Gabriela Roworth

Key takeouts

Each subcontractor seeking to enforce a subcontractor’s charge may file a separate statement of claim in a proceeding. However, they must first seek the court’s permission to do so, along with their request to be added as a plaintiff in the proceedings.

This decision provides clarification for subcontractors seeking to enforce their rights under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payments) Act 2017 (BIF Act), particularly in multi-party disputes. However, it also serves as a reminder that court approval is required before additional claims can be formally introduced.

Facts

Allroads Pty Ltd (Allroads), a civil construction company, was ordered into liquidation in early 2024. At the time, JTS Trading Group Pty Ltd (JTS) and Quarry Products Pty Ltd (Quarry Products) were subcontractors who had not been paid for work done under contracts with Allroads.

In May 2024, JTS initiated proceedings against Allroads to enforce a subcontractor’s charge pursuant to s 135 of the BIF Act, seeking payment of the outstanding amounts.

In February 2025, Quarry Products applied to be joined to the proceedings as a second plaintiff and the court granted that application. However, Quarry Products did not seek leave under section 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to bring its claim against a company in liquidation.

While the court had no issue granting leave retrospectively, a procedural issue arose when Quarry Products attempted to file its own statement of claim. The registry did not accept the filing, noting that having two separate statements of claim in the same proceeding would be a procedural anomaly.

Decision

The court granted Quarry Products leave to file a statement of claim in existing proceedings against Allroads finding that it is permissible for more than one statement of claim to be filed in the same matter but emphasised that leave must be granted before doing so.

Under the BIF Act, any action brought by a subcontractor to enforce a subcontractor’s charge is deemed to be brought on behalf of all subcontractors. The BIF Act also permits other subcontractors to become parties to the proceedings, subject to the court’s rules.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the now-repealed Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 (SCA), which expressly permitted each subcontractor to file a statement of claim as if commencing the action themselves.

While the BIF Act does not replicate this procedure, the court found that the legislative intent behind the SCA remains relevant. As such, the absence of an equivalent provision in the BIF Act does not preclude multiple statements of claim being filed in the same matter, provided that leave is first obtained.