Meet the Co-chairs - TAGLAW
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has recently handed down the long-awaited decision on the Lacrosse apartment tower litigation. The litigation was instituted by the owners corporation and individual unit holders against the builder, LU Simon. The decision has important implications for builders and building professionals in particular, in relation to combustible cladding.
Changes arising from the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Bill (Qld) (Bill) commenced operation on 17 December 2018. Most are aware that, as a consequence, the second tranche of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (BIF Act) has now come into effect and has replaced the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) and the Subcontractors’ Charges Act 1974 (Qld).
However the Bill also led to significant amendment of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (QBCCA) to strengthen obligations regarding defects liability and the release of security by way of retention.
The QBCCA already placed restrictions on the amount of security able to be held under construction contracts in Queensland. Subject to some specific exception the restrictions are 5% of the contract price for head contracts (s 67K) subject to an ability to contract out in writing and 5% for subcontracts (s 67L) with amounts under both levels of contract to be reduced to 2.5% after practical completion (s 67N).
The amendments now expand obligations with respect to both retention and defects liability.
Author: Tim Coleman
The Nuance Group (Australia) Pty Limited v SHAPE Australia Pty Limited  VSC 362 re-affirms that an adjudication determination will be quashed if the adjudicator fails to provide adequate reasons for their determination.
Partner, Tim Coleman and Law Graduate, Emer Sheridan, review the decision and discuss the circumstances in which a determination can be overturned.
Across all Australian jurisdictions, Security of Payment legislation provides that where the amount in a payment schedule is less than that in the payment claim, then a claimant may bring an application to have the matter determined by an adjudicator. Such a determination is only interim and so it does not finally settle the matters in dispute between the parties - which may still be litigated or arbitrated.
By Scott M. Wornow. Originally Published in the Daily Journal, February 7, 2019.
Digital technologies are disrupting the construction industry, which has been a notable laggard in technology adoption. For an industry that until recently has relied primarily on hardcopy versions of blueprints, excel spreadsheets to schedule subcontractors and track inventory, and old fashioned measuring tape to ensure the proper fit of building materials, the times “they are a changing’,” and quickly, as the song goes. And those changes demand new legal perspectives and more contemporary assessments of legacy agreements and contractual frameworks.
Author: Luke Preston, Partner
Security of payment laws in Queensland will change again on 17 December 2018 with the commencement of Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (BIF Act).
Stage 1 of the reforms commenced on 1 March 2018 with the implementation of project bank accounts for building head contracts entered with the Queensland government with a contract price or value between $1 million and $10 million.
- Related company insolvency can affect ability to maintain Queensland builder’s licence
- Ramping up subcontractor protection – Retention and now ‘Deemed’ Statutory Trusts
- New South Wales Returns Fire in the Security of Payment Wars
- Tripartite subcontracts: The new road block to subcontractor cash-flow?