Liquidated Damages in QLD Construction

In Queensland's dynamic construction industry, few contractual clauses carry as much financial weight—or potential for dispute—as liquidated damages. For property owners, these clauses represent a crucial safety net against costly project delays. For builders, they define the financial risk of running over schedule. But their power lies entirely in their enforceability. A poorly drafted clause is not just ineffective; it can be struck down entirely, leaving parties exposed and uncertain.

This guide provides a definitive overview of liquidated damages in Queensland building contracts for 2026. We will dissect the critical legal tests, explore the role of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC), and provide strategic advice for both builders and owners on how to draft, manage, and respond to claims. Understanding these principles is not just about compliance; it's about managing risk, ensuring project certainty, and avoiding costly legal battles.

---

Key Takeaways

• A liquidated damages clause is only enforceable if it represents a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' and is not a penalty designed to punish a party for a breach.

• The enforceability of your clause hinges on clear, unambiguous contract drafting and a defensible calculation of the specified rate.

• Properly documenting all project delays and formally claiming Extensions of Time (EOTs) is the most critical step for contractors to defend against a claim.

• While the QBCC provides a dispute resolution framework, complex arguments over liquidated damages often require legal intervention and may proceed to QCAT or the courts.

---

First Principles: What Are Liquidated Damages in a Building Contract?

Understanding the fundamental purpose and function of a liquidated damages clause is the first step toward using it effectively. It is a specific tool designed to solve a common problem in construction: quantifying the financial harm caused by a delay.

Defining the Core Concept

At its heart, a liquidated damages clause is a pre-agreed sum of money, fixed at the time of signing a building contract, that one party (typically the builder) agrees to pay the other (usually the owner or principal) for each day they are late in completing the project. This amount is not a fine or a penalty. Instead, it is intended to be a reasonable and genuine forecast of the foreseeable financial losses the owner would incur because of the delay.

This contractual mechanism provides cost certainty for both parties, removing the need to painstakingly calculate actual losses after a breach has already occurred. The trigger for these damages is the failure to achieve practical completion by the agreed-upon date in the contract.

Why These Clauses Are Essential for Project Certainty

Liquidated damages clauses are vital tools for risk management and project certainty. For an owner, they provide an immediate remedy for delays without the burden of proving actual losses, such as rental costs or lost revenue.

To ensure these remain claimable, it is vital to explicitly carve out liquidated damages from any general exclusion of indirect or consequential loss in the contract; otherwise, a court might find that the agreed damages cannot be recovered despite the delay.

For a builder, the clause limits exposure to a pre-agreed rate rather than uncapped general damages. This risk is often further managed by capping total liquidated damages at a percentage of the contract value (e.g., 5% to 10%) or a maximum number of days. While these clauses usually act as a "sole remedy" and a liability ceiling, the question of actual or consequential loss remains open if the clause is successfully challenged and struck down as a penalty in a tribunal.

Distinguishing Liquidated Damages from a General Damages Claim

It is crucial to understand the difference between liquidated damages and a general damages claim. Liquidated damages are a pre-agreed, specific amount for a single, defined breach (late completion), written directly into the contract. General damages, on the other hand, are an unknown amount that an owner must calculate and prove in a court or tribunal after a breach has occurred.

This process is often complex, time-consuming, and expensive, requiring detailed evidence of all actual financial losses that flowed directly from the breach.

If a valid and enforceable liquidated damages clause exists in the contract, the owner is bound by it. They cannot choose to ignore the agreed rate and sue for a higher amount of actual loss, even if their real-world costs exceed the stipulated sum. Conversely, if the clause is deemed unenforceable (for being a penalty), the owner's only remaining path is to pursue a general damages claim, which carries a much higher burden of proof. Determining which path is viable often requires advice from an expert building and construction lawyer who can assess the clause's validity.

The Critical Legal Test: Is Your Clause a Penalty?

The entire effectiveness of a liquidated damages clause hinges on a single legal principle: it must be a "genuine pre-estimate of loss," not a penalty. This is the central question that courts and tribunals in Queensland will examine in any building dispute over delays. Understanding this distinction is fundamental to both drafting an enforceable clause and challenging an unfair one.

Understanding the 'Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss' Principle

The cornerstone of enforceability in this area of contract law is the penalty doctrine. A clause will be upheld if the amount stipulated is a genuine, good-faith attempt, made at the time the contract was signed, to estimate the actual financial losses the owner would likely suffer from a delay. The key is that this assessment is made based on the information available before the project begins, not with the benefit of hindsight after the delay has occurred.

A genuine pre-estimate of loss can include a variety of quantifiable expenses an owner might face, such as:

• Ongoing rent for alternative accommodation.

• Storage costs for furniture and belongings.

• Loss of rental income from an investment property.

• Additional interest and financing costs.

• Other measurable holding costs.

The amount cannot be extravagant, unconscionable, or disproportionate when compared to the greatest conceivable loss that could follow from the breach. If its primary purpose appears to be to punish the builder for being late or to deter them from a breach, it will be considered an unenforceable clause.

What Happens if a Clause is Deemed a Penalty?

When a builder challenges a liquidated damages clause, a tribunal or court will analyse its substance and the circumstances under which it was agreed. If the adjudicator agrees that the stipulated rate is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the clause is declared a penalty.

This has a critical consequence: the entire clause becomes void and unenforceable. The owner completely loses the right to claim the pre-agreed amount. Their simple, contractual remedy vanishes. The owner's only recourse is to then attempt to prove their actual losses through a more complex and costly general damages claim. This process requires them to gather extensive evidence and argue their case from scratch, a situation that significantly increases the time, cost, and stress of a dispute.

Attempting to enforce an excessive, punitive rate is a high-risk strategy that often backfires, leaving the owner with no straightforward remedy for a delay. This is a primary reason for facing a building and construction dispute.

Key Factors Courts Consider During a Dispute

When determining if a clause is a penalty, QCAT or the courts in Brisbane will analyse several key factors based on established principles of contract law. The professional standards upheld by bodies like the Queensland Law Society guide legal practice in these assessments.

Key considerations include:

• Proportionality: Is the stipulated sum extravagant or unconscionable in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach?

• Bargaining Power: Was there a significant imbalance in bargaining power between the parties? A clause in a standard form contract presented to a homeowner on a "take it or leave it" basis may be scrutinised more heavily than one negotiated between two sophisticated commercial entities.

• The Nature of the Loss: Is the loss difficult or expensive to pre-estimate? The law recognises that one purpose of these clauses is to avoid the difficulty of proving actual loss, which can support the enforceability of a clause.

• The Intent of the Clause: Does the wording and structure of the clause suggest its primary purpose is to deter a breach (a penalty) rather than to compensate for the consequences of a breach?

Drafting an Enforceable Liquidated Damages Clause

Effective contract drafting is the foundation of an enforceable liquidated damages clause. It requires foresight, careful calculation, and precise language to ensure the clause can withstand legal scrutiny if a dispute arises. The goal is to create a provision that is both fair and legally robust.

Calculating a Defensible Daily or Weekly Rate

The process of setting a defensible rate should be methodical and evidence-based, not arbitrary. Before the contract is signed, the owner or their advisor should sit down and list all potential weekly or daily costs that would genuinely arise from a project delay. This involves tallying quantifiable expenses like rent, storage fees, lost revenue from a commercial property, or additional finance costs. This calculation should be documented and retained.

Keeping a record of how the figure was derived is crucial, as it can be used as powerful evidence to justify the rate and prove it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss if it is ever challenged in a tribunal.

Scenario: Imagine a homeowner, Sarah, who is building a new house. Her contract has a liquidated damages clause. To calculate the rate, she documents her weekly costs if the project is delayed: $700 in rent for her current apartment, $100 for a storage unit holding her furniture, and $50 in additional commuting costs. Her genuine pre-estimate of loss is therefore $850 per week, or approximately $121 per day. This documented calculation makes the clause highly defensible, unlike a randomly chosen figure like $500 per day, which could be seen as a penalty.

This careful contract planning is justified when considering the significant costs that can arise from project issues, such as the approximately $25,000 to rectify defective waterproofing, which highlights the financial stakes involved.

The Importance of Clear and Unambiguous Wording

Ambiguity is the enemy of enforceability in contract law. Vague terms create loopholes for disputes, and a liquidated damages clause is no exception. The core claim is that clear, unambiguous wording is essential to prevent costly legal battles over interpretation. For example, using a generic term like "completion" can be problematic, as parties may disagree on its meaning. Instead, the clause should be tied to a clearly defined term like "Practical Completion," which should be explicitly defined elsewhere in the contract with objective criteria.

This precision ensures that the trigger for applying the damages is a solid, measurable event. This level of detail is especially crucial in complex commercial building contracts.

Linking Damages to Specific Project Milestones

For larger or staged projects, a single liquidated damages amount tied only to the final completion date may not be the most effective or accurate approach. A more sophisticated strategy is to link separate, smaller liquidated damages amounts to the completion of specific project milestones or separable portions.

For instance, in a multi-unit development, a clause could specify a certain rate for the late completion of Stage 1 by its due date, and another for Stage 2. This contrasts with a single, large damages amount for the entire project, which may be less enforceable if parts of the project are handed over and used by the owner early, thereby reducing their actual loss.

The concept of 'separable portions' is a powerful tool. This approach creates a more accurate and proportionate reflection of the owner's actual losses at different stages of the project. For example, if a commercial tenancy can be partially occupied, the loss for a delay to the remaining portion is smaller.

By tailoring the damages to specific milestones, the clause is strengthened against a penalty challenge because it more closely mirrors the genuine loss, demonstrating a higher level of commercial sophistication, particularly in large-scale construction.

How Delays and Extensions of Time Interact with Liquidated Damages

The calculation of liquidated damages is not a simple matter of counting the days between the original completion date and the actual finish date. The process is directly and critically affected by the contract's provisions for an extension of time (EOT). Proper contract administration regarding delays is essential for both parties.

The Builder's Right to an Extension of Time (EOT)

Nearly all standard construction contracts in Queensland contain provisions that allow a builder to claim an EOT for qualifying delays. These are typically events that are outside the builder's reasonable control.

Common grounds for an EOT claim include:

• Variations requested by the owner.

• Inclement weather beyond the average allowance.

• Discovery of latent or unforeseen site conditions.

• Delays caused by the owner or their representatives (e.g., late supply of materials or information).

• Delays by separate contractors engaged by the owner.

When a builder makes a valid claim for an EOT and it is approved by the owner or superintendent, it legally moves the 'Date for Practical Completion'. This new date becomes the benchmark from which any liquidated damages are calculated. Therefore, a builder is not penalised for delays for which they have been granted a formal extension.

Documenting Delays: A Non-Negotiable for Both Parties

Rigorous documentation of delays is non-negotiable for both builders and owners. When a builder identifies a potential delay, their first step must be to issue a formal written notice to the owner or superintendent, strictly in accordance with the contract's timeframes and requirements. This notice should be followed by evidence supporting the cause and length of the delay.

This creates a clear paper trail that is essential for justifying an EOT claim. For the owner, this same documentation is vital for assessing the claim's validity and, if necessary, refuting it. Verbal agreements or informal discussions about delays are insufficient and often lead to disputes. This diligence in documenting delays is also a key part of managing broader obligations and security of payment rights.

What is the 'Prevention Principle'?

The prevention principle is a crucial legal concept that can act as a shield for builders. It holds that a party (the owner) cannot insist on the other party's (the builder's) compliance with a contractual obligation if they themselves have prevented that compliance.

In the context of construction, if an owner's actions or inactions—such as denying site access, failing to provide necessary materials, or causing significant delays through their own agents—prevent the builder from completing on time, the owner may lose their right to claim liquidated damages for that period of delay.

This block will explain a key legal defence for builders. It serves as a warning to owners that they cannot cause a delay and then penalise the builder for it. If an owner's act of prevention causes a delay and the contract does not have a proper EOT mechanism to account for that specific type of delay, the original 'Date for Practical Completion' can fall away entirely.

This can render the liquidated damages clause completely unenforceable, leaving the owner with no right to claim those damages. Navigating the complexities of the prevention principle often requires expert guidance from a QBCC lawyer.

The QBCC's Role and Relevant Queensland Legislation

In Queensland, the construction industry is heavily regulated. While liquidated damages are primarily a matter of contract law between parties, the overarching building legislation and the role of the state's regulator, the QBCC, create the environment in which these contracts operate.

Navigating the QBCC Act and Domestic Building Contracts

The primary legislative framework governing construction in Queensland is the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (QBCC Act), which includes specific regulations for residential projects under Schedule 1B. This Act sets out the rules for licensing, contracts, and conduct.

For domestic building work, Schedule 1B of the QBCC Act mandates that contracts must be in writing and contain specific information. However, it is important to note that this legislation does not set or cap the rates for liquidated damages. This is left to the parties to negotiate and agree upon, provided the amount represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The broader Building Act 1975 also forms part of the overall regulatory environment that governs building standards and compliance. It is important to note that under current BIF Act regulations, payment claims no longer require a specific endorsement statement to be valid. An invoice that identifies the work and states the amount claimed is sufficient to trigger the statutory payment process, ensuring access to fast-track adjudication.

Does the QBCC Directly Rule on Liquidated Damages?

A common misconception is that the QBCC acts as a court or tribunal for contractual money claims. This is not the case. The Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC)'s primary role is to regulate the industry, handle licensing, and promote compliance. While the QBCC can and does mediate disputes that involve a claim for liquidated damages as part of its QBCC dispute resolution service, it does not have the judicial power to make a binding ruling on whether a clause is a penalty or to order its payment. That power rests exclusively with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and the courts. The QBCC's role is facilitation and mediation, not adjudication of complex contractual claims.

Using the QBCC's Dispute Resolution Services

For domestic building disputes, lodging a complaint with the QBCC is often a valuable and mandatory first step. When a homeowner or builder initiates this process, a QBCC dispute resolution officer is assigned to the case. Their role is to facilitate communication, inspect any alleged defective work, and help the parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

This process can be an effective, low-cost way to resolve a disagreement over delays and liquidated damages without the need for more formal, expensive, and adversarial legal action through QCAT. It provides a structured forum for negotiation that can often lead to a practical outcome, saving both parties significant time and money.

Common Triggers for Liquidated Damages Claims

While the core trigger for a liquidated damages claim is a delay, the underlying causes of that delay are often where disputes arise. Understanding these common flashpoints is key to proactive project management.

Failure to Achieve Practical Completion on Time

This is the most direct and straightforward trigger. Practical completion is generally defined as the point where the building works are complete except for minor omissions and defects, and the building is reasonably fit for occupation and use. Every construction contract will specify a 'Date for Practical Completion'.

A claim for liquidated damages is triggered when the builder fails to meet this date, after accounting for any valid and approved Extensions of Time (EOTs). The dispute here is often not about the delay itself, but whether the builder was entitled to EOTs that were not claimed or granted.

The Impact of Defective Works on Timelines

Disputes over defective works are a major source of delays that can lead to claims for liquidated damages. Arguments over whether an item is a genuine defect or meets acceptable standards can halt progress, particularly near the end of a project. The time taken to rectify building defects can push a project past its completion date.

According to the QBCC's "Industry Snapshot" for 2024-2025, which showed internal paint application (1,875 items) and steel roof cladding (540 items) as top reported defects, disagreements over common finishing items are frequent.

These disputes can directly cause delays, leading to arguments over liquidated damages and sometimes necessitating a claim on the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme.

Navigating Disputes Over Variations and Their Time Costs

Variations are a common feature of construction projects, but they are also a frequent source of disputes regarding time.

A classic scenario unfolds as follows:

A builder, Tom, is asked by the homeowner to add a deck halfway through a project. Tom provides a price for the variation, which the owner accepts. However, Tom fails to formally claim an EOT for the extra three weeks the deck will take to build. When the project finishes three weeks late, the owner tries to claim liquidated damages. A dispute arises because the time impact of the variation was never formally agreed upon in writing.

This illustrates a critical lesson: when agreeing to a variation, both the cost and the time impact must be formally documented and agreed upon to prevent future disputes.

Strategically Managing and Responding to a Claim

When a project runs late and a liquidated damages clause is invoked, the way both parties manage the situation is critical. A strategic, formal approach can prevent the issue from escalating into a costly legal battle. Effective dispute resolution begins with clear communication and a thorough understanding of the contract.

For Owners: How to Correctly Issue a Notice

Issuing a notice of claim is a formal process that must be handled with precision. The first step is to carefully review the building contract to find the exact requirements for issuing notices. This includes the format, the required content, and the method of delivery.

Next, draft a clear, written notice that unequivocally states the intention to claim liquidated damages. This notice should reference the specific clause in the contract that permits the claim and show a clear calculation of the number of days the project is overdue (factoring in any approved EOTs) and the total amount being claimed.

Finally, and most importantly, send this notice via the exact method specified in the contract—whether that is registered post, email, or hand delivery. Failing to follow these procedural steps could jeopardise the validity of the claim.

For Builders: Formulating an Effective Response

Upon receiving a claim for liquidated damages, a builder's response should be calm, methodical, and evidence-based. The first step is to immediately conduct a comprehensive review of all project documentation, including correspondence, site diaries, variation approvals, and previous EOT claims. The goal is to assemble evidence that can form the basis of a defence.

This involves identifying any unclaimed EOTs for which the builder was entitled, instances of owner-caused delays that could trigger the prevention principle, or grounds to argue that the clause itself is an unenforceable penalty. Based on this evidence, formulate a formal written response that either refutes the claim with supporting documentation or, if the claim has some merit, opens the door to a commercial negotiation.

This structured approach is the foundation of an effective defence and is crucial for seeking legal advice.

When to Escalate the Matter to QCAT or the Courts

Legal escalation to QCAT or the courts should always be the last resort after direct negotiation and QBCC-facilitated mediation have been exhausted. Litigation is a costly, time-consuming, and often stressful process for both parties. However, escalation becomes necessary when there is a fundamental disagreement on the facts or the legal interpretation of the contract that cannot be resolved through negotiation.

This is particularly true when the core of the dispute is a complex legal question, such as whether the liquidated damages clause constitutes a penalty. In such cases, only a binding judicial decision can provide finality.

This concluding block will provide final, high-level advice. When a significant amount of money is at stake or the legal principles are complex, seeking a binding decision from a body like QCAT is the only way to achieve a definitive resolution. It is strongly recommended that you engage a legal professional before taking this step, as it involves formal legal procedures, evidence submission, and advocacy.

Merlo Law is equipped to handle such escalations, providing expert representation from mediation through to court proceedings, and can advise on all related complex issues, including the drastic step of terminating construction contracts.

Conclusion

Liquidated damages clauses are a powerful and necessary tool in Queensland's construction landscape, providing certainty and a clear remedy for project delays. However, their power is entirely dependent on their legal enforceability.

For owners, the key lies in meticulous, evidence-based calculation and clear contract drafting to create a clause that is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

For builders, diligent contract administration—particularly the formal claiming of all entitled Extensions of Time—is the most effective shield against a claim.

Ultimately, avoiding disputes comes down to proactive management, clear communication, and a deep understanding of the contractual and legislative framework. When disagreements do arise, a strategic, evidence-led approach is essential.

Whether you are an owner seeking to enforce your rights or a builder defending a claim, seeking expert legal advice early can be the difference between a swift resolution and a protracted, costly legal battle.

---

FAQs

What is the difference between liquidated damages and a penalty?

Liquidated damages are an enforceable, pre-agreed sum that represents a genuine attempt to estimate the financial loss from a project delay. A penalty is an unenforceable clause designed to punish a party for a breach with a sum that is extravagant or unconscionable compared to the actual potential loss. The courts will strike down a penalty clause.

How do I calculate a fair liquidated damages rate for my contract?

To calculate a defensible rate, you should document all foreseeable daily or weekly costs you would incur if the project were delayed. This can include rent for alternative accommodation, storage fees, loss of rental income, and additional financing costs. Keep a record of this calculation as evidence that it is a "genuine pre-estimate of loss."

Can I still claim for my actual losses if they are higher than the liquidated damages rate?

No. If your contract contains a valid and enforceable liquidated damages clause, you are generally bound by the agreed-upon rate, which provides certainty for both parties. However, be aware that many contracts cap the total sum of liquidated damages (often at 5-10% of the contract value). Furthermore, the treatment of such conditions matters: some contracts may explicitly leave open the question of actual, consequential, or indirect losses if the liquidated damages clause is successfully challenged as a penalty or if the contract does not define the rate as a "sole remedy" for that breach.

What should a builder do immediately after receiving a claim for liquidated damages?

A builder should not ignore the claim. The first steps are to conduct a thorough review of the contract and all project records. Assemble all documentation related to potential defences, such as unclaimed Extensions of Time (EOTs), evidence of owner-caused delays (the prevention principle), or reasons why the rate may be a penalty. Formulate a formal, written response based on this evidence.

Does the QBCC have the final say on liquidated damages disputes?

No. The QBCC's role is primarily regulatory and mediatory. While their dispute resolution service is a valuable first step to help parties reach an agreement, the QBCC cannot make a binding judicial ruling on whether a clause is a penalty or order its payment. That power rests with QCAT and the courts.

What is the 'prevention principle' and how can it affect a liquidated damages claim?

The prevention principle is a legal concept stating that a party cannot benefit from its own breach. If an owner's actions (e.g., denying site access, causing delays) prevent the builder from completing on time, the owner may lose their right to claim liquidated damages for the period of that delay. If the contract doesn't allow for an EOT for such a delay, the entire completion date can be set aside, making the clause unenforceable.

---

This guide is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact Merlo Law

---