MANSOURI v AQUAMIST PTY LTD

摘要

The appellants were the registered owners of land upon which the respondent carried out excavation and earthworks. The respondent issued a payment claim to the appellants but the appellants did not serve a payment schedule in response. The respondent applied to the District Court for judgment pursuant to s 19 of the Building and Construction Industry Payment Act 2004 (Qld). The respondent submitted that it had entered into a partly written and party oral contract with the appellants and that Pedro Mansouri acted as their representative. The appellants submitted in response that it was Mansouri, rather than the appellants, that was a party to the contract with the respondent. The judge at first instance accepted the respondent's argument that the disputed construction contract was irrelevant because the Appellants were liable to make the progress payment claimed pursuant to s 18(5) as persons who at least "may be liable to make the payment" under s 17(1) and gave summary judgment in favour of the respondent for the amount of the claim. The appellants appealed. Held (upholding the appeal): (1) The "basic and essential requirements" laid down for an adjudicator's determination include the existence of a construction contract between the claimant and the respondent. Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport (2004) 61 NSWLR 421; Cant Contracting Pty Ltd v Casella r20071 2 Qd R 13, followed.