CPB Contractors Pty Ltd & Ors v MSS Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd t/as MSS Steel & Ors [2025] QSC 239

Case Summary

A. Overview

The Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (BIFA) provides a fast, statutory mechanism to ensure contractors and subcontractors in Queensland are paid for construction work and related goods and services within strict timeframes.  Designed to reduce cash‑flow pressures, BIFA creates a streamlined process for making payment claims, issuing payment schedules, and resolving disputes through rapid adjudication.

As a result, it has become one of the most frequently used tools in the construction industry, protecting entitlement to payment, and helping to reduce commercial pressures by providing quick and enforceable processes for resolving payment disputes.

B. Factual and Procedural Background

On 24 September 2025, the Supreme Court of Queensland handed down its decision in the case between the CPB BAM Ghella UGL Joint Venture and MSS Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd.

The applicant is CPB BAM Ghella UGL Joint Venture (CBGU JV), an unincorporated joint venture comprising of CPB Contractors Pty Ltd, BAM International Australia Pty Ltd, Ghella Pty Ltd, and UGL Engineering Pty Ltd.

The respondent is MSS Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd trading as MSS Steel.

On 25 May 2023, the parties entered into a written contract for steel supply to the underground works at the Roma Street station construction of the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane.

On 1 Aug 2024, MSS Steel submitted Payment Claim No. 21 for $2,557,707.59 (incl. GST) which comprised of original contract works (OCW) and Approved Variations.

On 21 Aug 2024, the JV issued a payment schedule proposing to pay $227,925.58 (incl. GST), attaching: (i) Schedule 1 summary; (ii) Schedule 2 detailed summary; (iii) Schedule 3 “General Reasons”; (iv) Annexure 1 Monies Withheld; (v) Annexure 2 Monies Not Due; (vi) Annexure 3 Monies Set-Off.

On 2 Oct 2024, MSS Steel lodged an adjudication application under s.79 BIF Act; and on 18 Nov 2024, the JV lodged the adjudication response under s.82.

On 16 Jan 2025, the adjudicator decided the amount of progress payment payable by the JV to MSS Steel is $2,557,707.59 (incl. GST), with the full adjudicated amount $2,671,393.13 (incl. GST, interest, and the adjudication application fees).

On 16 Jan 2025, the adjudicator decided the amount of progress payment payable by the JV to MSS Steel, awarding the full amount claimed by MSS Steel in the payment claim, being $2,557,707.59 (incl. GST), as a consequence of finding the payment schedule invalid, because it did not comply with s.69(c) of the BIF Act. The adjudicated amount was $2,671,393.13 which included GST, interest, and the adjudication application fees.

On 14 and 22 January 2025, the JV paid the full adjudicated amount on account, pending the Supreme Court proceedings.

The JV commenced proceedings for judicial review in the Supreme Court of Queensland, challenging the adjudicator’s decision and seeking orders setting aside the adjudication decision for jurisdictional error, repayment of the monies paid, and a declaration that its response on 21 August 2024 was a valid payment schedule under the BIF Act.

C. Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator examined the JV’s response of 21 August 2024 and found that the payment schedule failed to state why the proposed payment was less than the amount claimed.  While the adjudicator found that the payment schedule complied with s.69(a) and s.69(b) of the BIFA, it failed to satisfy the requirements of s.69(c) and accordingly was an invalid payment schedule for purpose of the Act.

The two substantive claims for which the payment schedule was found invalid are:

• Item 3.16 – Roof Purlins: here MSS Steel claimed $399,400.14, for which the JV scheduled $0.  The JV commented ‘Goods not supplied by Supplier’ and made reference to descoping direction TSD-SC-SBGU-005012.00 and set-off claim SO03. The adjudicator treated the response as internally inconsistent and insufficient where some tables suggested the prior supply of 97.54 tons, and corresponding payment of $438,442.89;

  
  

• Variations V-012 and V-014 – Approved Variations: MSS Steel claimed $225,360 for V-012 and $125,351.22 for V-014.  The adjudicator concluded that the JV’s tables/annexures did not clearly set out reasons, but rather presented deductions without an articulated factual basis.

The effect of finding an invalid payment schedule was that under s.77 of the Act, the JV became liable for the full claimed amount; and under s.82(2), the JV’s adjudication response could not be considered; the decision therefore required payment of $2.671m (incl. GST, interest, and fees).

D. Court's Finding

The Court emphasised the BIFA’s speed and informality, and said that the payment claim and payment schedule need not be as precise and as particularised as a pleading in the Supreme Court, however, s 69(c) of the BIF Act requires a payment schedule to state reasons with sufficient clarity to define the parameters of any dispute. 

On the issue of adequacy of reasons:

• In relation to item 3.16 Roof Purlins: the Court found that notwithstanding the numerical inconsistencies, both parties knew that the “Goods not supplied” because of the descoping direction and set-off claim SO03.  This was sufficient reason to delineate the dispute, meeting the requirements of s.69(c);

• In relation to item V-012: the Court accepted that annexures setting out points such as “only one truss scanned (not 12),” requests for third‑party invoice evidence, and a valuation breakdown (quantities / rates / totals / variances), conveyed the essence of the JV’s objection and valuation approach;

• In relation to item V-014: the Court found that the JV directed MSS Steel to the reasons in the “VO14 Assessment” attachment, which explained the reasons for the assessed rates and methodology applied.  The Court again found that this sufficiently explained the deductions for purpose of s.69(c) of the Act.

Ultimately the Court declared that the JV’s response on 21 August 2024 is a valid payment schedule; and by deciding to the contrary of the Court’s finding that the payment schedule was invalid, the adjudicator’s view amounted to a jurisdictional error on a jurisdictional fact, and the decision therefore was declared void and was set aside.

While the Court was going to hear the parties on the balance of orders and costs, both parties already agreed at the commencement of the hearing that if the Court determined that the payment schedule was a valid payment schedule for purposes of the Act, MSS Projects should be ordered to repay the sum it has received.

E. Key Takeaway

1.  Clarity Over Perfection

The Court’s decision underscores that while a payment schedule does not require the level of detail of formal pleadings, it must provide reasons clear enough to define the scope of the dispute.

2. Contextual Sufficiency and Incorporation by Reference

Even when the payment schedule contained inconsistencies when addressed the Roof Purlins Item 3.16, the Court found that referencing the descoping direction and the set‑off claim SO03, was sufficient to communicate the basis for the “Goods not supplied” position.

3. Incorrect Finding on a Jurisdictional Fact Gives Rise to Jurisdictional Error

Under the Queensland BIF Act, the existence of a valid payment schedule determines the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. An incorrect finding that a payment schedule is invalid under the Act exposes the adjudication decision to jurisdictional challenge in subsequent court proceedings.

4.  The Conclusion

the Court’s decision reiterates that clarity – not perfection – is the standard in statutory adjudication, and even when incorporated by reference, the contextual knowledge shared by both parties was capable of satisfying the statutory requirements for the giving of reasons under s.69(c) of the Act.