Platform Constructions Pty Ltd v Fourth Dimension Au Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 264

Sarah Ferrett | Matt Hammond | Jazmin Sherrington

Key takeouts

A claimant must strictly comply with section 79(4) of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act (BIF Act), which requires that a respondent be given the adjudication application and all accompanying submissions in full within four business days of lodgement.

The term ‘submissions’ under section 79(4)(b) includes all documents lodged with the adjudication application, not just the written argument.

Strict compliance with section 79(4) is a condition of validity, meaning that failure to provide the complete set of documents within the statutory timeframe may render a subsequent adjudication decision void.

Facts

Platform Constructions Pty Ltd (Platform) contracted Fourth Dimension AU Pty Ltd (Fourth Dimension) to supply and install vinyl planks. In June 2024, Fourth Dimension lodged an adjudication application through the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) online portal, uploading its written submissions, payment claim, payment schedule and the subcontract (which was provided in seven separate PDF files due to size limits).

Fourth Dimension attempted to serve Platform with the complete adjudication application electronically immediately after lodgement, but the email was rejected because the attachments exceeded Platform’s server limits. Two days later, Fourth Dimension resent the material, but omitted to include the seven PDFs containing the subcontract, even though the subcontract was expressly relied upon in its written submissions and formed part of the documents uploaded with the adjudication application.

On 12 July 2024, the adjudicator issued a decision in favour of Fourth Dimension.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court

Platform applied to the Supreme Court seeking to have the adjudication decision declared void for non‑compliance with section 79(4) of the BIF Act. This section requires a claimant to give the respondent a copy of the adjudication application and all accompanying submissions within four business days after the application is made.

Platform contended that because of the failure to provide the subcontract Fourth Dimension had not complied with section 79(4) in two respects, being a failure under:

• section 79(4)(a) to provide a copy of the adjudication application; and
• section 79(4)(b) to provide all submissions lodged with the application (relevantly, the subcontract PDFs).

The primary judge rejected the argument under section 79(4)(a) but did not address the separate argument under section 79(4)(b) and dismissed the application. We covered this decision in Adjudication decision stands despite failure to provide copy of contract  – Construction Law Made Easy Platform appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal on the same two limbs of section 79(4).

Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Supreme Court’s decision.  

While the court agreed with the primary judge that Platform’s argument under section 79(4)(a) failed, it held that Platform succeeded on the alternative ground under section 79(4)(b).

The court confirmed that ‘submissions’ for the purpose of section 79(4)(b) included all documents uploaded with the adjudication application, not only the written argument. Fourth Dimension therefore failed to comply with section 79(4)(b) because it did not serve Platform with the complete set of documents lodged with the application, including the seven PDFs comprising the subcontract, within the statutory timeframe.

The court further held that, even if ‘submissions’ were construed more narrowly to mean only factual and legal assertions, Fourth Defendant’s written submissions expressly referred to the subcontract as a ‘Separate Exhibit submitted with the QBCC Adjudication Application.’ Without the seven subcontract PDFs, Platform did not receive the full submissions relied upon.

Both parties accepted, and the court confirmed, that strict compliance with section 79(4) is a condition of validity, meaning that non‑compliance is fatal to an adjudication decision.

Having found that Fourth Dimension did not strictly comply with section 79(4), the court made orders that:

• the adjudication decision be declared void;
• the Registrar remove the decision from publication on the QBCC website; and
• Fourth Dimension pay Platform’s costs of both the appeal and the original Supreme Court application.