Our client was engaged on the Mount Morgan Aquatic Centre project to perform concrete and associated construction works, with labour supplied on the basis of daily timesheets and job records and (given the location and crew movements) compensable travel and associated allowances forming part of the commercial reality of the delivery model. Payment was ultimately withheld in full, with the builder disputing labour hours and record compliance (including unsigned timesheets in earlier periods), which escalated into serious allegations that Olcon’s records were fraudulent.
Build Conex (through its quantum and claims capability) was initially engaged to support the progression of an unpaid claim through the Queensland security of payment regime under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017. An adjudication determination was obtained to pay $337,075.40 (incl. GST) plus interest, and 80% of the adjudicator’s fees. Following that outcome, the builder commenced Supreme Court proceedings seeking to set the determination aside, initially advancing fresh allegations that timesheets were falsified (including an allegation of false signatures) and asserting that time-lapse site camera material demonstrated personnel were “not on site for the hours claimed”.
The dispute required a rapid, technically disciplined response because the allegation was not merely about valuation or inefficiency; it was an attack on the integrity of the project records. Buildconex’s role was to undertake a forensic reconciliation of claimed labour hours and produce a defensible, evidence-based analysis capable of rebutting the fraud narrative at its foundation and stabilising the matter for either negotiated resolution or contested proceedings. This included converting high-volume daily records into a transparent reconciliation framework and isolating what the available surveillance material could, and could not, prove.
A key feature of the defence work was demonstrating the probative limits of the “CCTV” relied upon. The material in issue was not continuous CCTV footage, but a single fixed-position time-lapse camera capturing still images at five-minute intervals during an approximately 7:00 am to 5:00 pm window, with a restricted field of view covering only part of the site and with inherent “blind” periods between frames and outside operating hours. Buildconex assessed those limitations against real construction workflows (including off-camera tasks such as laydown logistics, materials handling, preparation/clean-up, supervision and indirect work, and periods of early starts and late finishes) so that “not visible” was not incorrectly treated as “not present” or “not working”.
The reconciliation methodology cross-checked daily timesheets and job sheets against the payment claim records (including the consolidated Payment Claim), payroll evidence and wage payments, and the surveillance snapshots, building a day-by-day and worker-by-worker substantiation schedule. Particular focus was given to the mid-project introduction of a countersigned timesheet requirement and the fact that some earlier timesheets were countersigned retrospectively after verification, rather than being fabricated. The analysis also dealt directly with the alleged “false signature” issue by reviewing the signature consistency across documents and taking into account third-party confirmation (by the relevant site representative) as to the authenticity and verification process.
On the evidence, the conclusion was that there was no substantiated basis for fraud: the bulk of the claimed hours were accounted for when the camera’s limitations and the realities of off-camera and indirect work were properly considered, and any minor variances were consistent with ordinary site practice rather than dishonest inflation. After substantial forensic work had been undertaken to rebut the fraud case. The builder abandoned the fraud allegations mid-proceeding and reframed its Supreme Court challenge as a jurisdictional attack. In June 2025, the court dismissed the application to set aside the adjudication decision and ordered the builder to pay costs, leaving the adjudicator’s determination intact.
