• Level 5, Evandale Place, 142 Bundall Road, Bundall, QLD, Australia

Blog

Making a Will – Jointly Owned Property

There is a common belief that where real or personal property is held by a husband and wife jointly, then if one of them passes on, their share automatically is transferred to the surviving spouse.  This is not necessarily the case, as it depends upon whether the particular asset – for example a home, a car, or a piece of art – is owned as “joint tenants” or as “tenants in common”.  The interesting stuff Having mentioned these things to colleagues over the past few days, I have discovered that this information is not generally seen to be anywhere near as interesting as I think it is.  So to jazz it up, I will use an example (Queensland law). Frank and Helen own all of their property jointly.  They have their home worth $1.5M which is recorded as joint tenants, a joint bank account with $150,000 in it, furniture worth $100,000, and a 1971 Ford Falcon GTHO that they bought new and which is now worth $850,000.  They have two adult children.  Neither bothered making a will because they thought it wasn’t necessary as they own everything jointly.  Frank got overly excited watching the V8 supercars and passed away.  So what happens? Well: But let’s substitute that Falcon for some shares worth $2M and from which Frank and Helen have been living on the dividends.  Ignoring tax outcomes, Frank’s $1M share would be given $150,000 to Helen, then  $283,333 to Helen, and then $283,333 to each of their children, essentially pulling nearly $600,000 out of their investments. An even worse outcome would have occurred if Helen and Frank had owned their home as tenants in common, as Helen would have had to buy Frank’s share in the home if she wanted to keep it, losing another $750,000 from her investments. So let’s consider a variation to the scenario.  Helen now has a will made given the dramas she had with Frank’s passing.  She wants everything to be given to her children equally.  But she also wants the Falcon to stay with her children, as a monument to Frank.  If she gives the property “equally” then that will generally be taken as tenant’s in common, so the if one of her children die after they have become owner, their interest in the car will pass under their will.  If she wants it to remain with her surviving child, then she will have to make it clear in the will that it is being given to her children as joint tenants.  In that case the will should deal with the Falcon independently of all other assets, which would usually be given as tenants in common. The boring stuff When a couple buys their home, the will usually have to nominate on the transfer whether they are to hold it as joint tenants or as tenants in common.  If it is held as joint tenants, then upon the death of an owner, their share in the property automatically vests in the surviving owner (a form is required to record this).  If the property is held as tenants in common, then on the death of an owner, their share is dealt with under their will, or if there is no will, under the intestacy laws.  This could mean that the co-ownership will end up being between the surviving owner and a third party named as beneficiary in a will, or if there was no will, according to the person or persons entitled in an intestate estate. The situation is more or less the same with personal property, by section 28 of the Property Law Act 2023 (Queensland).  This section (in very basic terms) provides that where there is a transfer of property to two or more people the transferees own as tenants in common unless the terms of the transfer provide otherwise.  This means that if a couple buy a piece of art for $100,000, then unless the terms of the purchase contract provide that they are buying as joint tenants, then they hold it as tenants in common, with the effect that if one of them dies, their interest in the piece of art is dealt in accordance with their will or the rules of intestacy.  Section 28 of the Property Law Act does not apply to transfers made under a will.  In a case where a gift is made under a will to two or more people, then the question of whether the beneficiaries own as joint tenants or tenants in common is determined with reference to common law principles.  A significant case in Queensland in relation to these principles is the judgment of His Honour Justice Derrington in the will of Leaver, delivered 7 March 1996.  In this decision, His Honour commented that where there was doubt as to whether a gift was given to beneficiaries as joint tenants or tenants in common, the court will generally find against a joint tenancy and in favour of a tenancy in common because of the inconvenience and possible unfairness associated with a joint tenancy, and a court will give effect to the “slightest indications that a tenancy in common is intended”.  The language of the will will often support the existence of a tenancy in common, for example where a gift is given to beneficiaries “equally” or “in equal shares”.  Even using the words “as joint tenants” was (in the matter of re Rose Deceased [1962] QWN 4) considered not sufficient to displace the presumption of a tenancy in common, when the wording in the will was “in equal shares as joint tenant”.  So the effect of this is that for most jointly owned property (other than homes and joint bank accounts) if someone dies it will not “automatically” go to the survivor. The important stuff So are there any lessons here? First, will makers should not assume that everything that their own with their spouse will automatically be taken by their spouse if they die.  Their will should specifically deal with

Challenging a Determination by an Adjudicator

A contractor or subcontractor liable to pay an adjudication amount pursuant to a determination by an adjudicator under the Act can apply to have the determination set aside. An application to challenge a determination by an adjudicator under the Act must be made to the Supreme Court of Queensland.  The Supreme Court frequently hands down decisions where it has considered these challenges. There are limited grounds available to challenge a determination. The grounds to set aside a determination are limited to jurisdictional error. Jurisdictional error is a complex area of law and can be difficult to evaluate in any given case. Examples of jurisdictional error committed by an adjudicator in making a determination under the Act include, inter alia, the adjudicator: For example, on 9 September 2025 the Court declared an adjudication decision void in the matter of Pico Play Pty Ltd v Coast Entertainment Operations Limited [2025] QSC 227 https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/157819  In that particular matter, the adjudicator had decided that he did not have jurisdiction to determine the adjudication for two reasons.  The claimant (Pico) applied for a declaration that the decision was void for jurisdictional error – i.e. that the adjudicator ought to have accepted that he had jurisdiction and determined the amount owing.  The adjudicator’s determination was declared void but it is unclear how the matter was then dealt with, perhaps it returned for a fresh determination by the adjudicator or a different one. But it is worth noting the time cost of the dispute – the payment claims were served on 28 January, 2025, the adjudication application was made on 25 March, 2025, the adjudication determination was given on 22 April, 2025, the proceedings filed on 1 May 2025, the matter was heard by the Court on 23 June 2025, and the decision given on 9 September, 2025.  There would also be attendant financial cost and cashflow considerations for parties to disputes such as these. Justin Mathews, partner of our firm can be contacted on 07 5574 0111 or via email at justinm@qbmlaw.com.au to provide advice and assistance with respect to all aspects of the adjudication process. Meet The Author! Meet the author of this blog article, Justin Mathews. Over the next several weeks, we will post a series of articles relating to Queensland building and construction matters written by Justin. Justin is a registered Adjudicator in Queensland under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 and also in the Northern Territory under its security of payment legislation, and an accredited specialist in commercial litigation.  He represents a number of Queensland building contractors and other parties in building and construction disputes both through the adjudication process and in the various state courts of Queensland, New South Wales, and Northern Territory, as well as advice in relation to contractual matters, and QBCC regulatory matters including matters involving the statutory warranty scheme. In these articles Justin will discuss a number of matters of interest to members of the Queensland building and construction industry. For enquiries concerning building matters, Justin can be contacted by email justinm@qbmlaw.com.au or Ph: (07) 5574 0111.

Adjudication Process

The adjudication process starts by the claimant (the contractor owed money) filing an Adjudication Application in the QBCC, together with its supporting material.  This is done online. Once it is filed, then the application and supporting material has to be served on the respondent (the person who owes the money) in accordance with the Act, and a registered adjudicator is appointed to determine the application.  Many adjudications fail because the adjudicator considers that they do not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.  If that happens, then the claimant  will usually have to pay the adjudicator’s costs.  Assuming though that the adjudicator has jurisdiction, then the adjudicator will decide what amount (if any) is payable, the due date for payment, and the interest rate that applies.  The respondent to the claim has the opportunity to file an adjudication response.  In that response, the respondent provides materials and an explanation for why they say that no amount or a lesser amount is owing.  That response also has to be given within a strict time period. The adjudicator will often call for submissions from the parties and will determine the application taking into account those submissions and the supporting documents.  This decision has to be made within a very strict and short timeframe, and generally, the adjudicator will require their fee to be paid before releasing their decision to the parties. If the adjudicator has found that the respondent is liable to pay an amount (called the “Adjudicated Amount”), then it must be paid within the timeframe provided for by the Act and a judgment can be registered in a court and enforced.  In some cases, a claimant can lodge a charge under the Act for the Adjudicated Amount over certain real property owned by the respondent.  This charge is generally available to a person contracting with the land owner, but would not usually be available for a subcontractor against (say) a builder, because the builder does not own the project property. This ability to lodge a charge on land is a very powerful tool to be used in the appropriate circumstances.  A decision of an adjudicator does not always finalise the dispute between the claiming contractor and the respondent.  There are continuing rights available to both, including for the party disappointed by the decision to make further claims outside of the adjudication process as the adjudication process is intended to avoid payment disputes starving the claimant of money, but recognise that this process does not allow for the full articulation of all matters between the parties.  In my next post, I will discuss challenging an adjudicator’s decision. Meet The Author! Meet the author of this blog article, Justin Mathews. Over the next several weeks, we will post a series of articles relating to Queensland building and construction matters written by Justin. Justin is a registered Adjudicator in Queensland under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 and also in the Northern Territory under its security of payment legislation, and an accredited specialist in commercial litigation.  He represents a number of Queensland building contractors and other parties in building and construction disputes both through the adjudication process and in the various state courts of Queensland, New South Wales, and Northern Territory, as well as advice in relation to contractual matters, and QBCC regulatory matters including matters involving the statutory warranty scheme. In these articles Justin will discuss a number of matters of interest to members of the Queensland building and construction industry. For enquiries concerning building matters, Justin can be contacted by email justinm@qbmlaw.com.au or Ph: (07) 5574 0111. Also Read: Queensland’s security for payment legislation – the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 Responding to payment claims

Starting an Adjudication

Following on from my earlier articles concerning Queensland’s Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act, the adjudication process is open to a contractor where an amount owed under a payment claim is not paid by the due date, or a payment schedule has the payment amount less than the amount in the payment claim. Since adjudication is a fast-track process to enable contractors and subcontractors to recover monies owing pursuant to a progress claim to maintain steady cashflow, it is the preferred recovery option available to contractors and subcontractors. While it is intended to assist people in the building industry, the adjudication process is highly technical, if it is not made within the required time, or served correctly, the adjudicator will not have jurisdiction to determine the claim and it will fail, most likely with an obligation for the claiming party to pay costs.  It has to be filed with submissions properly made and include supporting documents and evidence substantiating the amount in the payment claim. As a registered adjudicator and having decided numerous adjudication applications under the Act, I have found it often to be the case that adjudication applications are poorly put together, lacking the evidence required to establish the amount claimed in a payment claim and that the applications often do not comply with the strict requirements under the Act.  An adjudication application made that lacks evidence or is not compliant with the essential requirements of the Act will not succeed, or may succeed with an adjudicator but the decision may be set aside by the Supreme Court, usually because the adjudicator had no jurisdiction where a requirement of the Act was not met, and the costs to the unsuccessful claimant can be quite enormous if that occurs. Parties to payment claim disputes would usually benefit by the assistance of someone who acts in these matters and understands the requirements and processes, the kind of evidence that is necessary and the critical dates to meet.  Because of the potential loss of rights, early advice is recommended. In my next article I will discuss the adjudication process further. Meet The Author! Meet the author of this blog article, Justin Mathews. Over the next several weeks, we will post a series of articles relating to Queensland building and construction matters written by Justin. Justin is a registered Adjudicator in Queensland under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 and also in the Northern Territory under its security of payment legislation, and an accredited specialist in commercial litigation.  He represents a number of Queensland building contractors and other parties in building and construction disputes both through the adjudication process and in the various state courts of Queensland, New South Wales, and Northern Territory, as well as advice in relation to contractual matters, and QBCC regulatory matters including matters involving the statutory warranty scheme. In these articles Justin will discuss a number of matters of interest to members of the Queensland building and construction industry. For enquiries concerning building matters, Justin can be contacted by email justinm@qbmlaw.com.au or Ph: (07) 5574 0111. Also Read: Queensland’s security for payment legislation – the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 Responding to payment claims