11 Dec 2020
By David Marsh
Boilerplate terms of contracts can have a significant impact on the conduct of construction disputes.

This is a short article regarding two dissimilar cases, both of which focus attention on the fact that the boilerplate terms of contracts can have a significant impact on the conduct of construction disputes.

Tianqi Lithium

The first decision comes from the arbitration realm in which the Court of Appeal of the Western Australian Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of Master Sanderson not to grant a stay of proceedings under s.8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) in Tianqi Lithium Kwinana Pty Ltd v MSP Engineering Pty Ltd [No 2] [2020] WASCA 201.  It is a reasonably important decision on the question of how one reads the limited preservation of rights provisions in dispute resolution clauses.  By this I mean, most construction contracts have dispute resolution clauses and, even where arbitration is prescribed, there is (at least) some protection for the right to seek urgent relief from a court.

In this case, the contract in issue was an Australian Standard AS 4902 that had been slightly modified.  Relevantly, the standard preservation provision in clause 42.4 of the dispute resolution remained unamended.  As a reminder, that clause provides:

Nothing herein shall prejudice the right of a party to initiate proceedings to enforce payment due under the contract or to seek injunctive or urgent declaratory relief. [Emphasis added] 

It is also worthy to note that the standard right of set-off provision in clause 38.2 had been removed, although the withholding of payment provisions in termination were obtained in clause 39.10.

After analysing the authorities on how one reads clauses like clause 42.4, when dealing with a stay application under s.8 of the Act (and after considering three possible ways of doing so), the Court of Appeal adopted the following test at paragraph [127]:

… ‘proceedings to enforce payment due’ under the contract is proceedings which are capable of summary determination: ie, proceedings in which there is no triable issue which would form a proper basis for defending a summary judgment application.

This seems to be a sensible outcome for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal.  It is, however, still a matter of contractual interpretation and it might be open for parties to expand the rights of set‑off or to reduce the ambit of the preservation provision in the future so as to circumvent or minimise the impact of this decision.

BCS Infrastructure v Jones Lang Lasalle

The second decision (and an even better example of paying attention to the boilerplate) comes from the Supreme Court of Victoria where Her Honour Justice Stynes handed down an interesting decision in the matter of BCS Infrastructure v Jones Lang Lasalle (NSW) Pty Ltd [2020] VSC 379 regarding service of payment claims under the Victorian SOP Act.

The difference between jurisdictions on service (amongst other things) are such that, from a Western Australian perspective, a detailed analysis of the decision is not warranted.  However, the issue of service of payment claims and adjudication applications has long vexed the SOP regime across all Australian jurisdictions such that one wonders whether it might be something best dealt with by Parliament, preferably under uniform legislation dealing with the question of valid service.  I note that there is a provision in Western Australia relating to service but it may not go as far or be as clear as it ought to.

In this case, the various claims underpinning the SOPA application were provided through a document sharing platform called Corrigo and was attached to an invoice, notwithstanding the fact that the parties had been communicating by email with respect to unpaid invoices beforehand.  Indeed, her Honour found that this was the first time that the builder had used Corrigo to upload these kinds of documents.

The question for the Court was whether the relevant date, for the purpose of the date by which the principal had to respond to the application under the Victorian Act, was the date upon which the claims were uploaded to Corrigo or the date upon which the claim came to the attention of the principal. If the former, the principal would have been liable for the entire amount of the claim. Her Honour, after working through the history of the communications between the parties and the notice provisions of the relevant contract, found that the time by which the respondent had to respond to the payment claim was calculated from the latter date, when it came to the attention of the principal.  The effect of her Honour’s finding was that the respondent’s response to the payment claim was within time.

In the end, despite the relatively fact-heavy analysis conducted by her Honour, there is a simple takeaway for all practitioners and that is, to pay close attention to the notice provisions of the contract.  This also extends to other administrative provisions of the contract because these provisions might also affect how the claim must be prepared and delivered.  For example, if the building contract provides for the SOPA claim to be delivered to a specific appointor body, it should be served on that appointor, and failure to do so might render the claim nugatory.  In summary, bringing and defending SOPA claims (which in and of themselves can be quite complex) is often done against significant time pressure such that parties might forget to dot the i’s and cross the t’s of the application.  Anyone working in the area, either law firms or participants in the construction industry, need to have simple processes in place to make sure that the contractual requirements, as well as the requirements of the relevant SOP legislation, are met.


Recent Insights

Infrastructure expenditure affecting the Western Australian construction market

Over the last 12 months, there have been numerous reports of a skills shortage in the Western Australian building and construction industry – in both blue and white-collar sectors. While the current boom is nowhere near that of 2012, there are a number of factors making it more difficult to top up the Western Australian building and construction industry from outside sources.
Read More

Are you SOPA Ready?

This week (on 22 June 2021), amendments to the WA regime as set out in the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Bill 2021 were passed by both houses of WA Parliament and is currently awaiting formal assent by Governor. With a Western Australian security of payment regime set to undergo a root and branch overhaul, it is time to ask yourself: Am I SOPA ready?
Read More

Time Bars vs Estoppel: Valmont Interiors Case

At the heart of the appeal was the question of whether an estoppel would operate to prevent a party, which directed additional works outside the express contractual variation regime, from bringing those works back within the contractual variation regime and then using the time bar provisions of that regime to bar the claim.
Read More

Notes on Boilerplate Terms of Contracts Impacting Construction Disputes

This is a short article regarding two dissimilar cases, both of which focus attention on the fact that the boilerplate terms of contracts can have a significant impact on the conduct of construction disputes.
Read More

Commercial Leases in Western Australia during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Acknowledging small business, including the retail sector, have been hard-hit during the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to commercial tenancy laws in WA are providing some relief through what is defined as this “emergency period”. Solomon Brothers partner, Chris Williams, provides a summary of these legislative changes and their impact on both landlords and tenants.
Read More

When Worlds Collide: Indemnities Vs Limitations of Liability

While the usual caveats that apply to the impact of decisions refusing to grant summary judgment apply to NRW Contracting Pty Ltd v Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 2020, there are at least important take-aways from the decision. The fact that it is a Court of Appeal decision also makes it worthy of note.
Read More

ASIC’s beef with Westpac over responsible lending duties

On 13 August 2019, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgment in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation (Liability Trial) [2019] FCA 1244 (“the Liability Trial”).
Read More

Commercial Rent Reduction Negotiation: Getting a great result for all parties

What to do when a commercial tenant asks for a rent reduction The starting point for a landlord is to...
Read More

“Construct Only” Contract, but is it really?

  The phrases “construct only contract” and “design and build contract” are ubiquitous within the Australian construction and building industries....
Read More

Kilmaley Investments: Putting the brakes on the assignment of statutory compensation

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Kilmaley Investments Pty Ltd v City of Wanneroo [2019] WASCA 156 is an interesting development in case law relating to the assignability of a right to statutory compensation.
Read More

Get in touch with our Construction Law Team

DAVID MARSH

Partner Litigation