Construction Law Update April 2018

40 minutes  29.04.2018 Richard Crawford

In this edition, we analyse cases in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.

Of particular interest is the South Australian courts’ alignment with New South Wales on the validity of ‘premature’ payment claims in the context of security of payment, in direct contrast with the Victorian courts’ approach. The interplay between the mandatory set-off provisions under the Corporations Act and the recovery process under security of payment legislation was also the subject of an interesting case in New South Wales.

There is another new decision on when surrounding circumstances at the time a contract is executed can be included in construing the contract, this time in New South Wales, which adds another case to the authorities interpreting the High Court decision of Codelfa.

Your April 2018 edition is now available. You can also access past editions.

In the Australian courts

New South Wales

  • Builder's breach of statutory warranties warrants discipline  |  Boyd trading as Kalana Homes v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2018] NSWCATOD 46
  • Construing a contract - when does ambiguity matter?  |  Cherry v Steele-Park [2017] NSWCA 295
  • Watch what you say if you want to rely on the contract  |  CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Rizzani de Eccher Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1798
  • It pays to know who you are contracting with and to firm up payment arrangements before terminating a construction contract  |  Primelime (NSW) Pty Ltd v B.A.E.C. Contracting Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 372
  • Liquidation results in stay of recovery proceedings  |  Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq); Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) v Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 412

Queensland

  • Oppressive material can lead to indemnity costs order  |  John Holland Pty Ltd v Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] QSC 48
  • Interlocutory injunction successful in stopping enforcement of BCIPA adjudication decision  |  Low v MCC Pty Ltd & Ors; MCC Pty Ltd v Low [2018] QSC 6
  • Arbitrator’s independent reasoning upheld  |  Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Mio Art Pty Ltd [2018] QCA 39
  • Brevity does not constitute a jurisdictional error!  |  Watkins Contracting Pty Ltd v Hyatt Ground Engineering Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 65

South Australia

  • No reference date, no payment claim – the importance of correctly identifying a reference date  |  The Trustee for Allway Unit Trust trading as Westside Mechanical Contracting Pty Ltd v R&D Airconditioning Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] SASC 46

Victoria

  • Factors to consider when calculating a quantum meruit for variation works  |  Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 119

Western Australia

  • Another adjudication determination quashed for jurisdictional error – the continuing trend in WA  |  Clough Projects Australia Pty Ltd v Floreani [2018] WASC 101


Tags

eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJuYW1laWQiOiIxNzdiNmIwNS1kOWIyLTQ5YmQtOTY3YS0yZjFhNWMxNzQyZWYiLCJyb2xlIjoiQXBpVXNlciIsIm5iZiI6MTczMzMzOTYzNSwiZXhwIjoxNzMzMzQwODM1LCJpYXQiOjE3MzMzMzk2MzUsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm1pbnRlcmVsbGlzb24uY29tL2FydGljbGVzL2NvbnN0cnVjdGlvbi1sYXctdXBkYXRlLWFwcmlsLTIwMTgiLCJhdWQiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy5taW50ZXJlbGxpc29uLmNvbS9hcnRpY2xlcy9jb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb24tbGF3LXVwZGF0ZS1hcHJpbC0yMDE4In0.HsRY2_jtZ4k-ahJAsSyd95xy82-GyDY-J0jZ29vKV-8
https://www.minterellison.com/articles/construction-law-update-april-2018

Point of View: insights into key issues and challenges facing business today.

In this series of interviews with MinterEllison partners we hear their perspective on key areas of interest to our clients and the business community.