28 Nov 2019
By Aleksandar Vuksic
Construction Law


The phrases “construct only contract” and “design and build contract” are ubiquitous within the Australian construction and building industries. On the face of it, the differences between the two are self-explanatory: The “construct only” contract, known as the “traditional” form of procurement, involves a contractor entering into an arrangement for the construction of a project, the design of which has been undertaken by a third party; to the contrary, the “design and build” contract (also referred to as “turnkey contracts”) typically sees the same contractor responsible for both the design and construction of the project. 

It is evident that the nature of the contract entered into has the potential to greatly affect the liabilities of the contractor. However, it is increasingly the case that a contractor under a “construct only” contract finds themselves responsible for broader obligations and warranties than the face of the contract leads them to believe. This article aims to identify some of the pitfalls that contractors and builders should look out for when contemplating signing.


The first, and probably most obvious, pitfall for contractors to be wary of is the inclusion of warranties in a construct only contract which go beyond the physical construction of the project and extend to a contractor warranting, for example, that the design of the project is “fit for purpose”.

Traditionally, the warranties that have to be given by the contractor in a construct only contract have been fairly limited and related to the use of materials and good workmanship. The more burdensome warranties, on the other hand, have typically been the domain of the design and build contract which, by its very nature, calls for the contractor to warrant both the design of the project and the bringing of that design to life.

Recently, we have seen a trend of including warranties that effectively impose design obligations upon the construct only contractor. Not only is this problematic for the contractor who may not have the experience or know-how to warrant against defects in design, but the nature of the contract becomes fundamentally different. Whilst it is true that the law does not take labels to heart and will always turn to the words of any contract to construe its meaning and the parties’ intentions, this trend may have serious consequences for smaller contractors who enter into a supposedly “construct only” contract without the benefit of this understanding and often with significantly less bargaining power than their larger and more sophisticated counterpart.

A couple of examples of warranties that Solomon Brothers commonly encounters include a warranty that the contractor has examined and carefully checked any preliminary designs (often in circumstances where the contractor may not have complete access to, or a technical appreciation of, the design documents); and a warranty that the design is suitable, appropriate and adequate for the specified purpose, consistent with the requirements of the law and does not contain any discrepancies, ambiguities or inconsistencies.

Duty to Warn

It is arguable that such warranties as those discussed above are merely amplifying the implied duty to warn, which all contractors, regardless of the nature of the contract they sign, must be cognisant of. That is, even in circumstances where there is no reliance placed on the construct only contractor during the design process, an effective design or suitability obligation may be implied if a reasonably competent contractor should have realised that the design was likely to prove unsuitable. The contractor may be held in breach of the contract if they then fail to warn the principal. 

The implication of the duty to warn will be a question of fact and will be highly dependent on the circumstances of each case. In this sense, the obligation is not as stringent as the express obligations imposed under a design and build contract, but it begs the question of whether a “construct only” contract can ever be truly that.

The Colloquialism Pitfall

Finally, one of the key matters for contractors and builders to bear in mind when entering into a “construct only” contract is that this is merely a label that, whilst commonly used throughout the industry, is not strictly a legal definition and will not be on their side should it come to a dispute. 

It is the terms of the relevant contract that will ultimately dictate the parameters of the legal relationship between the parties. As the WA State Administrative Tribunal clearly stated in Owners of Strata Plan 52843 and Psaros Builders Pty Ltd [2013] WASAT 46 at [44], “in contracts that can be described as ‘construct only’, aspects of construction may be left to the builder which may involve aspects that can be characterised as ‘design’.”


Builders and contractors must remain vigilant when entering into “construct only” contracts in order to ascertain the full scope of their obligations. At the end of the day, beware of labels because failing to do so could land a contractor in hot water.

As always, each project is unique and this should only serve as an outline of issues that contractors should consider. For comprehensive advice regarding construct only or design and build contracts, contractors can get into contact with Solomon Brothers and our Construction Law Team will be happy to assist.

Josie Thompson and Aleksandar Vuksic

Disclaimer: This post has been prepared as a general summary only. It is not, and is not intended to be, legal advice with respect to any particular matter. This post should not be relied on with respect to any particular matter. If you have questions about any aspect of this issue you ought to seek legal advice. The author and Solomon Brothers disclaim liability to any person who relies on this post.


Recent Insights

How to Respond to a Statutory Demand

In this article, we explain what a statutory demand is, the legal consequences of receiving one, and how you can respond to one to receive the best outcome for your company.
Read More

How To Build a Security Of Payments Act Claim and Response

Following recent amendments to the WA Building and Construction Act, claimants and respondents alike may be left asking how these...
Read More

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

Get in touch with our Construction Law Team


Partner Litigation