Austruct Qld Pty Ltd v Independent Pub Group Pty Ltd

Austruct Qld Pty Ltd v Independent Pub Group Pty Ltd

Austruct Qld Pty Ltd v Independent Pub Group Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 1.


Austruct Qld Pty Ltd (‘Austruct’) entered into an agreement with Munday Group Pty Ltd, which was subsequently assigned to Independent Pub Group Pty Ltd (‘Independent’), for renovations to a hotel. Austruct sent a box containing trade certificates and previous invoices to the Project Architect, Mr Troung (‘the Architect’). A similar box containing the same documentation with the addition of a payment claim, under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (‘the BCIPA’), was also sent to Independent’s Sydney office. The Sydney address was merely an address for service and was not a working office. Independent’s principle place of business was in Adelaide.

Austruct telephoned the Architect to mislead him to think that no payment claim had been served in Sydney by misleading the Architect to believe that a full copy of the documents served in Sydney had been given to him.

Austruct deliberately failed to inform the Architect that the box of documents in Sydney contained a payment claim under the BCIPA. The Independent claimed that the actions of Austruct in misleading the Architect to believe that the Sydney box did not contain a payment claim was misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (‘the TPA’ now the Competition and Consumer Act).


Does conduct contrary to the Competition and Consumer Act affect notices given under the BCIPA?


To continue reading this content, please complete the form below