The Queensland Supreme Court in Downer EDI Rail Pty Ltd v DT Infrastructure Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 212 has clarified what is meant by the ‘subject of an adjudication application’ when determining whether an adjudication application is deemed to be withdrawn pursuant to s 97 of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (the Act).

DT Infrastructure served a payment claim on Downer for $22.2 million. Downer responded with a payment schedule of $13.5 million, meaning $8.7 million remained in dispute. DTI made a adjudication application for the disputed amount. DTI’s adjudication submissions focused solely on the value of two disputed variations, in the amount of $681,445.37 (the Variation Amount). Following receipt of the  adjudication application submissions, Downer paid DTI the Variation Amount and sought a declaration from the Queensland Supreme Court that the application was deemed withdrawn under s 97(1)(b) of the Act.

Pursuant to s 97(1)(b) of the Act, an adjudication application is taken to have been withdrawn when the respondent has, before an adjudicator has heard the application, paid the claimant the amount in the payment claim which is the ‘subject of the adjudication application’.

Downer asserted that given DTI’s submissions were limited to the Variation Amount, once Downer paid DTI the Variation Amount, the adjudication application was deemed withdrawn pursuant to s 97(1)(b) of the Act . Whilst DTI acknowledged that the main focus of the adjudication application was the Variation Amount, it contended that the subject of the adjudication application was the $8.7 million in dispute, and the adjudication should remain on foot.

The Court rejected DTI’s argument, and made a delcarlation that upon Downer paying DTI the Variation Amount, the application was taken to be withdrawn under s 97(1)(b) of the Act. In reaching this decision, the Court emphasised the Act’s purpose of facilitating fast and efficient dispute resolution and noted that the Act requires that an adjudicator to determine the disputed amounts as quickly as possible. If the adjudicator was required to consider the entire $8.7 million without any corresponding submissions, their task would have been considerably greater and likely undermine the central purpose of the Act.

The Court also stated that as the remainder of the $8.7 million was not the subject of the adjudication application, DTI was entitled to pursue this amount in future payment claims.

The full judgment can be read here.