Bridgeman Agencies Pty Ltd v S.E. QLD Plumbing & Drainage Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 167

Andrew Orford  |  Olivia Doonas  |  Rose Dillon

Key takeouts

• A claimant must clearly identify the construction work or related goods and services to which a progress payment relates to meet the definition of a ‘payment claim’ contained in section 68(1)(a) of the Building Industry Fairness (Security and Payment) Act 2017 (Qld).
• A court may consider the parties’ previous dealings and documentation exchange to determine whether the work claimed has been identified in sufficient detail to meet the definition of the BIF Act.  
• The level of detail in a payment claim is not to be assessed through the lens of an uninformed observer but according to its meaningfulness to the parties as understood in reference to the relevant construction work.

Facts

Background

S.E. Qld Plumbing & Drainage Pty Ltd (SEQ Plumbing) was subcontracted to Bridgeman Agencies Pty Ltd (Bridgeman) to perform certain hydraulic services work. On 22 September 2024 SEQ Plumbing gave Bridgeman its fourth payment claim in the amount of $180,310 (Payment Claim). On 8 October 2024 Bridgeman issued a payment schedule in respect of the Payment Claim.

SEQ Plumbing had previously delivered three payment claims to Bridgeman in June 2024, July 2024 and August 2024, each of which had attached a worksheet setting out the work SEQ Plumbing had undertaken.   The form of the worksheet was discussed between representatives of SEQ Plumbing and Bridgeman and approved by Bridgeman’s project manager. SEQ Plumbing prepared each payment claim using the same format.

Adjudication

On 17 October 2024 SEQ Plumbing lodged an adjudication application in respect of the Payment Claim.

Bridgeman defended the adjudication application on the basis that the Payment Claim was not a valid payment claim because it failed to identify the construction work to which the progress payment related, contrary to the requirements of section 68(1)(a) of the BIF Act.

The adjudicator determined that the amount of $103,509 was payable by Bridgeman to SEQ Plumbing pursuant to the Payment Claim (Adjudication Decision).

Decision

Bridgeman brought an application before the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking an order that the Adjudication Decision be set aside or declared void for want of jurisdiction.  

The central issue raised in the proceeding was whether the Payment Claim was a valid payment claim under the BIF Act.  Bridgemen argued that the Payment Claim did not contain a description of the work and to the extent it relied upon percentages to describe the extent of completed work, this was insufficient to identify the work to which the Payment Claim related.

Bridgeman submitted that:

• the failure of the Payment Claim to identify the construction work could not be remedied by reference to documents which did not form part of the Payment Claim itself; and
• even if the court could look at any document outside of the Payment Claim for the purpose of identifying construction work or related goods and services, the use of percentage figures in the Payment Claim meant the construction work was not sufficiently identified.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application and upheld the Adjudication Decision. In adopting an objective approach to the interpretation of the Payment Claim, Kelly J affirmed the settled principle, that to determine whether work has been sufficiently identified, the background of each of the parties, derived from their past dealings and exchange of documentation, is to be properly considered.  A payment claim, which might appear to be lacking in detail by an uninformed observer, may be sufficiently meaningful to the parties involved to identify the work.  The Supreme Court found that:

• the items claimed in the Payment Claim described by reference to previous correspondence exchanged between the parties and referenced in the Payment Claim contained sufficiently meaningful words to be understood in reference to the identified work; and
• while percentage figures may sometimes assist in identifying construction work, they are insufficient on their own unless the work is discrete, clearly described and supported by contextual documentation understood by both parties.

In having regard to the characterisation exercise of the entirety of the Payment Claim, the Supreme Court found that because the two largest claim items sufficiently identified the construction work and services to which they related, the Payment Claim was valid and that no jurisdictional error had been established.