The recent decision in JTS Trading Group Pty Ltd v Allroads Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2025] QSC 211 offers helpful guidance on the procedural requirements a subcontractor should follow when seeking to join another subcontractor’s proceedings against the relevant principal.

Background

Under section 134(2) of the BIF Act, a subcontractor may commence proceedings against a principal to recover amounts owed to it by the head contractor. In the case of JTS Trading, the proceedings were initiated by JTS Trading Group Pty Ltd (as subcontractor) (JTS Trading) against the Department of Transport and Main Roads (as principal) (Department) and Allroads Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (as head contractor) (Allroads). The proceedings began with the filing of a Claim and Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court in mid‑2024.

Another subcontractor, Quarry Products Pty Ltd (Quarry Products), later sought to join the proceedings initiated by JTS Trading. Quarry Products did so to pursue its own subcontractor’s charge against the Department.

Key Points

Section 135(2) of the BIF Act provides that any action commenced by a subcontractor to enforce a subcontractor’s charge is taken to be brought on behalf of every other subcontractor:

1. Who has served a notice of claim to the head contractor under section 122 of the BIF Act, being the prescribed form
2. Whose subcontractor’s charge has not been extinguished under section 136(3) of the BIF Act, which requires proceedings to be commenced within one month after service of the prescribed form on the head contractor
3. Who becomes a party to the proceedings under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Section 135 therefore anticipates that multiple subcontractors may participate in a single set of proceedings against a principal to recover amounts owed by a head contractor.

In February 2025, Quarry Products was granted leave to join the existing proceedings. After joining, Quarry Products attempted to file its own statement of claim in addition to the statement of claim already filed by JTS Trading, creating the unusual situation of multiple statements of claim in the same proceedings.

On a later application by Quarry Products, the Court retrospectively granted leave under section 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for Quarry Products to bring its claim against Allroads, which was then in liquidation. However, when considering whether Quarry Products could file a second statement of claim, the Court noted that the BIF Act does not prescribe the procedural mechanism by which additional subcontractors can become parties to such proceedings.

In resolving this issue, the Court examined the former section 12(3B) of the Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 (Qld), which indicated that the previous legislative framework contemplated multiple statements of claim within a single set of proceedings. On that basis, the Court granted Quarry Products leave to file its own statement of claim.

Key Takeaways

When a subcontractor applies for leave to be joined to existing proceedings commenced under section 134(2) of the BIF Act, it should also seek a direction permitting the filing of its own statement of claim under rule 69(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). If the head contractor is in liquidation, the subcontractor should additionally request leave under section 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Further information / assistance regarding the issues raised in this article is available from the authors, Michael Gill, Partner, Nicholas Revere, Senior Associate, or your usual contact at Moray & Agnew.