Your selected location:
15 Mar 2015

Victorian Supreme Court Declares Enforcement of Payment Awards by Insolvent Contractors

Never do subcontractors have more reason to be worried than when head contractors become insolvent and no longer have the financial means to pay their subcontractors for the work they have done.  Indeed, the need ensure that cash flows to the subcontractors who need it the most is the very purpose of security of payment legislation.

 

In Hammersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10 Beech J of the WA Supreme Court may be said to have struck the right balance between the right of employees and subcontractors of insolvent head contractors, to be paid for the work they have done and the right of principals to prove and set off their counterclaims in the liquidation.  Beech J achieved this simply and practically by staying the head contractor’s application for leave to enforce an adjudication award under security of payment legislation pending determination of the counterclaims which the principal said it was entitled to set off against that award under section 553C of the Corporations Act.  At the same time, his Honour allowed the contractor to bring its application back before the Court if the principal did not take timely steps to prosecute the counterclaims which it relied on as the basis for staying the contractor’s application.   By allowing for the principal’s foreshadowed counterclaims (remember, it hadn’t claimed them yet) to be heard and determined before the insolvent contractor was allowed to enforce the adjudication award, Beech J’s decision was consistent with the policy of both the mutual set-off provisions of the Corporations Act and the security of payment provisions which governed the adjudication.  This is further considered in the article: WA SUPREME COURT ENSURES LIQUIDATORS OF INSOLVENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS GIVE AS GOOD AS THEY GET: HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD v JAMES [2015] WASC 10

 

More recently, in the Victorian Supreme Court, Vickery J took a very different approach in Façade Treatment Engineering Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd.  In that case, Vickery J held that security of payment legislation was, in some cases, unconstitutional because it was capable of operating inconsistently with s553C of the Corporations Act where (in this order):

 

(a)          a contractor obtains an adjudication award under security of payment legislation;

 

(b)          that contractor then becomes insolvent;

 

(c)          that contractor then applies for leave to enforce the adjudication award; and

 

(d)          the principal resists this application by the insolvent contractor, in reliance on counterclaims which the principal says it is entitled to set off against the contractor’s claims under s553C.

 

According to Vickery J, when these very specific facts apply, security of payment legislation is invalid because of section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which reads:

 

Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”

 

However, on one view, security of payment legislation, far from being inconsistent with s553C, can be made to operate alongside it, just as Beech J has one in Hammersley Iron.

 

 

Vickery J then says that where security of payment legislation is invalid because of inconsistency with Commonwealth law, it can be revalidated if the principal’s asserted counterclaims fail or are not progressed through the court in a timely way.  His Honour seeks to justify this finding by quoting a passage from a textbook on statutory interpretation.  However, as we read it, this passage says that the only way to revalidate a State law that is invalid because of inconsistency with a Commonwealth law is to repeal the Commonwealth law.

 

Vickery J concludes his judgment by saying that, having found security of payment legislation to be invalid (but only in limited circumstances and for a limited time), he did not have to:

 

“consider the second and alternative limb of the reasoning…in Brodyn [Pty Ltd v Dasein Constructions Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1230] that, in construing security of payment legislation, it manifests an intention to operate only when the head contractor and the subcontractor are going concerns, and should be so construed”. 

 

This may be seen as a missed opportunity to give consideration to the basic purpose of security of payment legislation.  The legislation is there to provide contractors with a quick and informal way to keep cash flowing down the contractual chain in accordance with the contractual payment regime until the works under contract are substantially completed.  Where the principal or head contractor becomes insolvent, that contractual payment regime no longer applies and so, neither does security of payment legislation.  The contractual payment regime might appear to have survived the contractor’s insolvency in cases like Hammersley Iron and Façade However, in those cases, before the contractor became insolvent, it had already had its payment claims adjudicated.  All that was left for the insolvent contractor (or its liquidators) to do once it had become insolvent was to enforce the payment award which had already been made.  This means that, when the adjudication award was made in each case, no constitutional issue of the kind identified in Façade could have arisen.

 

In recent commentary, it was said that in fact, the decisions in Hammersley Iron and Façade were consistent because they both led to:

 

(a)          the insolvent contractor having no immediate entitlement to enforce its adjudication award pending determination of the principal’s asserted counterclaims; and

 

(b)          the contractor not losing its right to enforce the adjudication award later, should the asserted counterclaims be either dismissed by the court or abandoned by the principal.

 

That may be so at this early stage, each contractor having just applied for leave to enforce its adjudication award.  In due course, however, the two approaches are likely to lead to very different outcomes. For a start, unlike in Façade, the approach in Hammersley Iron recognises that courts have a discretion, which security of payment legislation gives them, to decide in each case whether and when to allow contractors to enforce their adjudication awards.  If, in exercising this discretion, a court does not take proper account of what the principal says are its rights of set-off under s553C, the principal can appeal on the basis that the court’s discretion in that particular case has miscarried.

 

However, if the courts start adopting the approach taken in Façade, they are likely to end up dismissing, as a matter of course (rather than a considered exercise of judicial discretion), all applications by insolvent contractors for leave to enforce their adjudication awards.  This is likely because, if there is any prospect at all that perhaps, one day, the principal might possibly have prosecuted its asserted counterclaims, and succeeded, and taken steps to set them off against the contractor’s entitlements under section 553C, then this would, on Vickery J’s reasoning, make prior enforcement of the contractor’s adjudication award unconstitutional.  This lingering risk of unconstitutionality could lead to permanent unenforceability of payment awards based merely on an asserted counterclaim, however unmeritorious, even if the principal never actually takes substantive action against the contractor.  This would be bad news for subcontractors and employees of the insolvent contractor who might well depend, for their own solvency or cash flow, on the cash injection that an enforceable payment award would have yielded.

 

Principals resisting future applications by insolvent contractors to enforce payment awards might consider arguing instead that the contractual payment regime, and the adjudication based on it, totally failed when the contractor became insolvent.   This argument, explained in our Daniel Morris’s Brooking Prize winning paper,[1] would leave the liquidator to make an alternative claim outside the contract for the fair value (quantum meruit) of works done by the contractor before it had become insolvent.  This kind of application tends to be complex, and difficult and expensive to prove, which would make it a far less attractive option for any liquidator than simply enforcing an existing payment award.

 

 This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. If you would like further information in relation to this matter or other legal matters please contact our office on Freecall 1800 609 945 or email us. 



[1] “Restitution sans Rescission: Exposing the Myth of a Fallacy”, Australian Law Journal (2015) 89 ALJ 117.

*This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. Please consult one of our experienced Legal Team for specific advice relevant to your situation.

Supporting Western Australian's for more than 100 years

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"

Sitka Pil

My circumstances at the time I made contact with HHG were dire following my argument being rejected by two no win no fee firms. Following my initial meeting with HHG's employment law team I was left feeling extremely positive by the response and concern shown by HHG in regards to their support of my argument along with their preparedness to pursue an outcome on my behalf.

I accept the fact that nobody really wins in these cases (mental health/ workplace) however the end result was what would be considered most favourable and far in excess of what would have been achieved had I not sought the advice from HHG.

I have no hesitation in recommending HHG to anyone caught up in the messy circumstances I found myself in at the time.

Great advice and five-star commitment to their client!!"

Nathan Lynch

"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."

Jim Goodwin

"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"

Dr Lana Bell

"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."

Jan Atkinson

"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however, Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."

Lynette Livesey

"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."

Nigel Plowman, Director at McKinley Plowman & Associates

"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."

Richard Beal, Director at BDO

"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."

Michael Malone, Founder of iiNet

"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law. I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."

Bernice Climie

"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve Harvey and Jane Powell

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."

Amanda Williamson

"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."

Kerry Samson

"I had a fantastic lawyer in Anne Hurley. She helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly, professional manner. First class, thanks Anne"

Graeme Hammond

"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first-class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."

Carolin Grimm - Marine Plant Systems

"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."

Rosslyn Tasker - COO AltusQ Pty Ltd

"Good service you can count on."

Miles Lee

"HHG Legal Group has provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyond reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligence process has been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."

Mark Armitage

"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Anne."

Jacques Taylor

"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Legal Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."

Tony Walker

Select your location:

Please select your nearest office location so we can show you the most relevant information.