{"id":372890,"date":"2026-06-05T15:34:26","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T05:34:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/?p=372890"},"modified":"2026-06-05T15:56:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-05T05:56:44","slug":"small-wins-in-water-plant-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/southburnett.com.au\/news2\/2026\/06\/05\/small-wins-in-water-plant-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Small Wins In Water Plant Case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
FLASHBACK: Aquatec Maxcon and South Burnett Regional Council representatives inspect the Gordonbrook Water Treatment plant at its official opening in 2016<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

June 5, 2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

A multi-million dollar lawsuit by the South Burnett Regional Council against the company which built the Gordonbrook Water Treatment Plant is still winding its way slowly through Queensland’s Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

The claim, against Ipswich-based company Aquatec Maxcon, was originally lodged in the Brisbane Supreme Court on October 21, 2020.<\/p>\n

Since then, there has been mediation between the parties, “without prejudice” discussions, amended defences filed by Aquatec and an amended statement of claim by the SBRC.<\/p>\n

There has also been a disputes over costs incurred by the parties during the latest part of the proceedings.<\/p>\n

The SBRC is seeking damages of $7,648,077 (excluding GST) for an alleged breach of contract.<\/p>\n

Aquatec claimed it is not liable for any amount greater than $2,619,812.06.<\/p>\n

The Gordonbrook Water Treatment Plant was commissioned on February 28, 2016, and began operating on April 12, 2016.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Council assumed responsibility for the operation of the plant from May 28, 2016.<\/p>\n

The legal action centred on the supply and installation by Aquatec of “stainless steel water retaining structures” – including pipework, flanges and other components – made from grade 316L stainless steel.<\/p>\n

These “stainless steel structures” were required to have a minimum design service life of 30 years.<\/p>\n

Aquatec accepts these structures have corroded and deteriorated.<\/p>\n

The SBRC alleges it relied on representations that the 316L stainless steel was fit for purpose, which included knowledge that the plant would be treating Gordonbrook Dam water, Boondooma Dam water and a mix of both.<\/p>\n

It if had not been misled, it claims, it would have directed Aquatec to use alternative material, duplex 2205 grade stainless steel, that was fit for purpose.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The SBRC alleges it has suffered loss and damage because of Aquatec\u2019s conduct and is seeking to recoup that loss or damage.<\/p>\n

Aquatec has countered that had the plant been operated in accordance with the Plant Operating Conditions, the corrosion would not have occurred.<\/p>\n

Recently, the SBRC achieved two small victories in the ongoing saga.<\/p>\n

On April 24, the Court approved Council’s application to file an amended Statement of Claim which means the SBRC can seek a higher damages amount; and on May 15, ruled that Aquatec would have to pay Council’s costs for this portion of the case.<\/p>\n

No date has been set as yet for a possible trial.<\/p>\n

Related articles:<\/strong><\/p>\n