On Tuesday the Supreme Court delivered the decision of Runaway Bay Investments Pty Ltd v GCB Constructions Pty Ltd  QSC 292.
This is the first decision in Queensland in which the court found that it had power under UCPR 658 and under its inherent jurisdiction, to order a party challenging an adjudication decision to pay the disputed amount into court even though no restraint was sought against enforcement of the adjudication certificate.
The application was not one to which s.34(4)(b) of the Building Construction Industry Payments Act applied, however the court found that the attack on the adjudication decision was, in effect a “curial challenge” and the the policy of the Payments Act was to provide the protection of security of the adjudicated amount where its enforcement was challenged.
Whether deliberately or otherwise, the court was concerned to be cautious to ensure that the policy of the Payments Act was not circumvented.
The claimant has obtained an adjudication certificate as well as judgment thereon and the (successful) respondent (Builder) had (at the time of the application) failed to comply with enforcement proceeding obligations. List Member Mark Ambrose QC acted for the Builder.
The link to the judgment is below: https://lnkd.in/g2jEcsg