Search Results

Every moment you waste, could be the difference between a small fine or a large fine at best, and at worst a large fine and jail time. Have you ever heard the phrase “you never get a second chance to make a first impression?“. Well that is the case with the law. With proper help I can get you through your circumstances. On 6 October 2016, a milestone tragedy occurred which changed QLD legislation – seriously. Two workers were crushed to death by 28-tonnes of precast concrete panels during construction of a foul water drainage reservoir at the Eagle Farm Racecourse. During construction, a sewage pipe was used as a makeshift brace for the precast concrete panels and a ladder positioned against one of the slabs was the only escape route located inside the excavation. Authorities also identified that two workers designated as health and safety co-ordinators were not aware of their nominated roles. Work health and safety law in Queensland Work health and safety law in Queensland are a serious matter and now impose criminal liability for certain failures. A breach to work health and safety law in Queensland occurs when: a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU), or its senior officers' conduct, negligently causes the injury or death of a worker; or an action is taken that places any person at risk of injury, illness or death; steps are not taken to avoid a risk from occurring; and there is a failure to comply with regulatory requirements. Categories of offences The WHS Act sets up a ‘health and safety duty of care’. There are 4 categories of offences for failing to comply with a health and safety duty under the WHS Act depending on the degree of seriousness or liability involved. Industrial manslaughter The highest penalty under the WHS Act is for industrial manslaughter where a PCBU, or a senior officer, negligently causes the death of a worker. If a PCBU, or senior officer, commits the offence of industrial manslaughter, a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment for an individual or $10 million for a body corporate applies . In the Eagle farm tragedy, Principal contractor, Criscon was responsible for safety and management of the site, and after being charged with two counts of a category 1 offence (reckless conduct), Criscon elected to plead guilty to two counts of the lesser category 2 offence of failing to comply with a health and safety duty. In sentencing Criscon, the Magistrate found that despite a safe work method statement (SWMS) being in place the SWMS was not appropriate for the nature of the work and was not being implemented by the subcontractor. Criscon was fined $540,000, which was reduced to $405,000 for the early guilty plea, plus costs. Both Criscon’s site manager and director still face separate charges regarding individual breaches of their duties as officers. The manager of the subcontractor, Claudio D’Alessandro is facing separate criminal manslaughter charges in relation to the fatalities. Consequences and your next step This decision is a cold reminder that safety is everybody’s business and of what can happen principal contractors officers of a company, and subcontractors and employees for unsafe practices. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

The Legislature are preparing for surgery - in the 20 odd years since its inception, the Security of payment laws have ruptured and spread like a tumour throughout the various state jurisdictions causing confusion and inefficiencies. The ‘Murray Report’ of December 2017 made 86 recommendations to improve security of payment, including that Australia should implement a nationally consistent legislative model because of confusion and inefficiencies. In QLD the government commenced its new Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld) (BIF Act) on 17 December 2018). Meanwhile the New South Wales Government proposed further changes to its security of payment regime under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Amendment Bill 2018 (NSW) (NSW Bill). Some time ago, in an effort to encourage subcontractors to use the Security of Payment regime, the NSW government decided to remove the requirement to endorse payment claims as being made under Security of Payment Act. The thought behind that was that head contractors were ‘refusing’ to hire ‘litigious’ subcontractors. Removing the need for subcontractors to endorse their payment claims supposedly addressed that bias. Despite emphasis that the changes are to provide greater payment protection for subcontractors, in a strange turnaround, the NSW government has reintroduced the requirement for subcontractors to endorse their payment claims. Other proposed reforms under the NSW Bill: Other proposed reforms under the NSW Bill include creating an entitlement for claimants to make: a payment claim at least once per month;  reducing the maximum time period for head contractors to pay subcontractors after receiving a payment claim from 30 business days to 20 business days; and creating the right for final payment claim after a contract is terminated. Watch out! the sheriff of Nottingham has the right to enter your castle at any time If you operate from your home you might like to be aware draconian incursions on your civil liberty are on the horizon with the NSW government increasing the compliance and enforcement powers of NSW Fair Trading so that an “authorised officer” can physically enter premises (yes even your home), and inspect documents - without a search warrant. Be very careful what you do and say The current penalty of up to 3 months imprisonment remain. Current fines are proposed to increase to from 200 penalty units to 1000 penalty units (which equates to $110,000) for serving a payment claim without a supporting statement which declares all subcontractors have been paid and providing a supporting statement knowing that the statement is false or misleading. What the? If you are in NSW, we recommend you keep your ear to the ground and invest in debtors insolvency insurance now because it appears liquidators will be explicitly excluded from serving payment claims or taking any action to enforce a payment claim. What now for QLD? It is clear that in the throws of the COVID19/corona Virus, the Commission will certainly move to tighten existing laws. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

From November 2017, the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (BIF Act) introduced reforms to ensure Queenslanders in the building and construction industry are paid for the work they do. The BIF Act repealed the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (BCIPA) and the Subcontractors Charges Act 1974 on 17 December 2018. On 17 December 2018, BIF Act provisions commenced that relate to: Requirements for retention monies and security (to be included in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991). Subcontractors’ charges Progress payments Adjudication What this means for you These changes affect payments for construction work and supply of related goods and services in Queensland. New provisions were also introduced to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 via the BIF Act from 17 December 2018. These introduce new penalties for withholding retentions past the end of the defects liability period without a reasonable excuse. The current situation The BIF Act has changed the requirements for payment claims, subcontractors’ charges and adjudication. The BIF Act adopts the same framework and principles of BCIPA but still uses the definitions of ‘construction work’ and the ‘supply of related goods and services’. However, the requirements of the legislation now apply to all payment claims In other words a contractor no longer has to endorse a payment claim with the wording of the Act. The current situation is more a streamlined adjudication process where disputes arise. This is good news if you are a contractor chasing money, but is even more difficult if you are a contractor disputing payment of money as timelines are now even more constricted. Summary All claims for payment (Including actual or merely alleged entitlement) are the subject of the BIF Act - Whether the claim says so on its face or not. If not paying a claim in full by the due date, a payment schedule needs to be issued within 15 business days from receiving a payment claim (Unless required earlier under your contract). All claims for payment must still be paid on time. Strict penalties now apply. You should be aware that these requirements apply to all payment claims, not only those issued from 17 December 2018, But also these requirements apply to existing contracts entered into before the BIF Act was in force. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

What’s a default judgement? A court will issue a default judgement where a defendant has failed to file a defence.  Once the plaintiff/creditor obtains a default judgement, they will then have twelve years to enforce payment of the judgement debt. It will go on your credit record too. No surprises there. But did you know that if you don’t address the situation enforcement action could be taken against you without your notice? Imagine if payments to you were suddenly redirected to someone else without your knowing? Or what if someone turned up to take your possessions? What can I do for you? Don’t standby and let your credit record be destroyed or watch as your possessions are repossessed. Call me today, let’s get started! Step 1: Lets confirm details of the default judgement You will likely not have the full details of the case and default judgement against you, for example because you only fo​und out about it when the sheriff came to your place or money was missing from your bank account. Step 2: Let’s get the forms ready Step 3: I’ll need to prepare an application and affidavit which will at the least: ​​ Ask the court to set aside the default judgement and allow you to file a defence Ask the court to stay enforcement until at least the hearing of your motion State how costs should be dealt with. The affidavit will: Explain why a defence was not filed; Explain any delay in applying to set aside the default judgement; Contain details of your defence to the claim; You need to sign the affidavit  Step 4: I will file your forms Your application and the affidavit will need to be filed at the same court where the statement of claim was filed and the default judgement entered. There may be filing fees too.  Step 5: we will need to file the original plus a copy of the application and affidavit.  The court will keep the original and give us back a stamped copy. I will then need to make a copy of the documents and serve them on the plaintiff or their lawyer. Step 6: The court will give you a hearing date.  Step 7: We will go to court. At the hearing the registrar or magistrate will consider your application and affidavit and any submissions from you and the plaintiff.  If the court did not set aside the default judgement, you may be able to apply to have that refusal reviewed. You must do this within 28 days of the decision.  If we win If the court sets aside the default judgement, the registrar will make orders for you to file a defence within a certain time (usually within 14 days). If you do not follow these orders the plaintiff can apply to have the judgement re-entered.  ​Costs If the court finds that the failure to file a defence within 28 days is your own fault, the court will normally order you to pay the plaintiff's 'costs thrown away'. This is the cost of them attending the hearing, as well as the cost of any enforcement action they may have already taken.  If you are able to prove that you did not receive the statement of claim or that the plaintiff did not serve it properly, the plaintiff may be ordered to pay your costs. The court may instead order: ​'costs in the cause'. This means that the costs of the application to set aside judgement will be dealt with at the end of the case. 'each party bear their own costs'. This means that you and the plaintiff each have to pay your own costs. The court may also order a party to pay any disbursements as well as professional costs. Other types of cost towards can also be made in certain circumstances. Don’t delay! Time is of the essence! Call me today to discuss. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

The essential answer to that question is that depends on what state you live in. Firstly, what is economic loss? The term economic loss encompasses any situation where an individual or organisation losses money. Financial loss is a visible loss that can be identified through legitimate financial statements. This type of damage is not from a property damage, or any other type of non-economic damages that cannot be proven, it has to be a tangible loss of assets. What is a latent defect? Basically a latent defect is one which is a hidden or yet untriggered defect in a product, premises, or title to real property that cannot be discovered by observation or a reasonably careful inspection. Contracts go some ways toward expanding and limiting that definition however. What’s the problem? The rule against economic loss. Defects in buildings can also pose significant problems for you as a subsequent owner who take on a building without having contracted the relevant work. This is because you would have no claim in contract, unless separate rights or a warranty are conferred on on you. The general rule is that damage to a building which is attributable to a defect in the structure or fixtures of that building is not recoverable – such damage is known as 'pure economic loss' as the only loss sustained is that you just paid too much for the property. In 2011 the Court of Appeal clarified that, ordinarily, contractors will not owe duties not to cause pure economic loss. Therefore they will not owe such duties to subsequent owners. Limited exceptions may apply if the new owner is able to show that the contractor had assumed responsibility for that loss through the provision of skilled advice or services or at least some design responsibility, and that the owner had relied on that advice or services or design. Where do you stand? Well, one case made it through two appeals all the way to the High Court of Australia. Brookfield Multiplex v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 & Anor [2014] HCA 36 (You can read about it below), but here’s what it said. On the question as to whether a Builder owed a person a duty to exercise reasonable care in constructing the building to avoid causing the corporations suffering pure economic loss from latent defects: The decision has extinguished any rights against builders in respect of latent defects to common property for a large number of body corporates in Queensland. What can I do for you? Get in touch with me. I can assist you with the contractual allocation of risk and searches in several ways. As a developer, we need to ensure that all your construction contracts contain express warranties to properly address defective works in the event that they arise. You may wish to consider extending the liability period, which is generally 12 months from the date of practical completion, to a more significant time frame. If you are an owner or body corporate, Queensland legislation provides some protection in the form of automatically subrogated rights of under a construction contract regarding works affecting the common property or land that becomes a lot in a community titles scheme.  This means that body corporates and owners have some rights against a builder as if they were the developer. However, it may be difficult for owners and body corporates to enforce these rights.  That is because where owners and body corporates are not a party to the construction contract they may not have copies of the relevant documents and so an understanding of the rights and limitation periods contained in those documents.   Time will be of the essence! Body corporates and owners should not delay investigating any possible claim that may exist. Apartment owners may also be able to claim via the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme or the Australian Consumer Law.   Any such right to claim only arises in very limited circumstances if you an owner you will need to seek legal advice about any possible rights and remedies that are available – yesterday! When purchasing an apartment off the plan Protect yourself by researching the builder and the developer.  This may reveal previous issues with building defects on the QBCC registers, you may find owners unhappy with a builder or developers work.   When purchasing an existing apartment, you should conduct a thorough body corporate records search.   These searches will provide minutes of annual general meetings and any information on the sinking fund which might reveal any planned or recent capital works projects.   This may provide some insight into whether or not latent defects have been found and the potential cost of  repairing the defects.   The Brookfield case The decision of Brookfield Multiplex v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 & Anor (‘Brookfield’) involved a dispute regarding latent building defects in the common property of a set of apartments in Sydney. A dispute arose between the appellant who was the builder, and the respondent who was the owners’ corporation in 2012. The Decision at first instance At first instance the Supreme Court of New south Wales held the appellant did not owe a duty of care to prevent reasonably foreseeable economic loss from the latent defects in the common property caused by defective design or construction. The court recognised and upheld the comprehensive negotiation between the developer and the appellant concerning the allocation of contractual rights. Further, the judge refused to identify or impose any ‘novel duty of care’ between the appellant and the respondent where one was not indicated by the contract.  It was also held that to rule in favour of such a premise would result in venturing into an area which was not provided for by the legislation. His honour therefore held for the appellant in the action. The Decision on appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal The case subsequently went on appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal where the decision at first instance was overturned.  The Court of Appeal rejected the proposition that the contract between the parties by contract and negotiations comprehensively dealt with the imposition of a duty of care to an extent which left no room for imposition of duties in tort.  The Court found a duty, however they limited it to building defects which were structural, and which constituted a danger to persons or property or made the apartments uninhabitable.  The Decision on appeal to the High Court The issue raised in the appeal to the High Court was whether Brookfield owed the corporation a duty to exercise reasonable care in constructing the building so as to avoid causing the corporation to suffer pure economic loss from latent defects.  The High Court overturned the decision from the Court of Appeal. The High Court unanimously found that on the facts, the appellant did not owe a duty of care to the respondent. In so doing, the judges examined the contract between the appellant and the developer and identified that the developer was adequately protected as the contract contained numerous stringent clauses which allocated liability for building defects. Thus, the court stated that to impose any duty of care would improperly modify the careful allocation of risk within the contract. It was for the legislature to act in order to protect subsequent purchasers. While both New South Wales and Victoria have enacted such legislation, Queensland has not. Someone remind me what the QBCC does again?? Thus, in Queensland, apartment owners are not protected from latent building defects and have very limited circumstances where a builder will be liable for repair costs arising as a result of latent defects in a building. The effect of the decision The decision has extinguished almost any rights against builders in respect of latent defects to common property for a large number of body corporates in Queensland. It has likely ensured that new apartment blocks builds will have contracts similar to those analysed in the Brookfield case.  This will ensure that liability is allocated so as to prevent apartment owners having any rights against builders outside those allocated within the contract. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

It’s no secret how common it is in these days for businesses and individuals to negotiate and conclude deals via electronic communication such as e-mail and other forms of messaging.  The speed and casual ease in which emails can be exchanged is their attraction. Matters can progress much more quickly and the issues drilled down on faster using this method. The down side is the danger emails represent when they are used for contractual negotiations, and why parties frequently find themselves in binding contracts unintentionally. Often, the finer details of contracts and other agreements may be discussed in a series of emails. The problem is very much a double edged sword. Both in the sense that if you did not intend to enter into a binding contract you may find yourself caught, and if you did intend to enter into a binding contract, you may find that contract is unenforceable for a wide variety of reasons. If you have started to negotiate by email but don’t want your emails to form a binding contract, then you should clearly state in your emails that “no binding contract is formed unless and until a formal contract has been executed”. But will that still protect you? The answer is no. Not necessarily. But it’s a good start. If you don’t expressly state words to that effect, a Court is unlikely to imply in your emails, that you intended to be legally bound. In the case of Stellard Pty Ltd v North Queensland Fuel Pty Ltd [2015] QSC 119 a binding contract for the sale of land was held as made by email.  Incredibly, both the offer email and the email accepting the offer referred to the offer being “subject to contract” and “subject to execution“. Yet this held was not enough to make the offer conditional. The Court found that the broader context of the emails revealed that the parties had intended to be bound immediately. The Court was also satisfied that the emails met the requirement for a contract for the sale of land under the Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Act 2001(Qld). There is another important take-home from this case, and that is that you should be aware that a document which is labelled as something may not necessarily be found to be that document. For example what you may think is merely a memorandum of understanding, can also be a binding contract and held against you. The Stellard decision was very similar to a decision by the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Vantage Systems Pty Ltd v Priolo Corporation Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 21. In this case, it was held that a binding contract to lease commercial premises had been made by a series of emails, despite the emails referring to the offer as being “subject to formal approval“.  In NSW too, the Supreme Court found a binding settlement agreement had been made by email between lawyers in Universal Music Australia Pty Limited v Pavlovic [2015] NSWSC 791. The Court held that a lawyer’s email stating that the client would sign the settlement deed, combined with both communications and conduct, was enough to form a binding contract.  Although it was intended that a deed would be signed, the Court refused to imply from the emails that no binding agreement would be created until the deed was actually signed. You can see just how much of a problem this is and you can see a pattern as to how the courts are increasingly treating these matters. Key Takeaways The cases highlight that the Court will assess whether parties intended to form legal relations and a binding agreement which means that it is not the subjective beliefs of the parties about their obligations which govern the contractual relations. And the mere fact that parties anticipate or intend that a formal document will be completed at a later stage does not prevent the informal negotiations from becoming binding. I think the message is clear!  If you believe you have entered into a contract by a series of emails or other correspondence, you should call me immediately, either to enforce your rights or to protect them. Don’t forget time is of the essence as the longer you wait you may not be able to enforce your rights or you may be able to have accepted the other parties conduct and denied your rights. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

Saipem Australia Pty Ltd v GLNG Operations Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 294 This case considered the operation of section 67J of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCCA). The law Section 67J of the QBCCA provided that a party to a building contract can recover a security or retention amount owed under the contract, provided they give written notice of their intention to do so etc.  Subsection 2 qualified that in order to be compliant, the notice must be given within 28 days after the contracting party becomes aware, or ought to reasonably become aware, of their right to retain or obtain the amount owed. Section 67E of the QBCCA rendered any term of a building contract which does not comply with section 67J unenforceable. The Facts Saipem and GLNG Operations entered into an agreement for the construction of a gas transmission pipeline.  Saipem advised GLNG operations they were experiencing cash flow problems. In order to assist, GLNG Operations agreed to certain advance payments, ‘Milestone Advance Payments’. The contract provided for two bonus payments if the work was completed within a specific time window (the ‘bonus window’). The contact expressly outlined that GLNG Operations was able to set off or deduct any amount due payable to Saipem under or in relation to the Contract or the Works, in respect of the Milestone Advance Payments. Clause 60.5 required Saipem to provide bank guarantees to GLNG Operations for an amount equal to the Milestone Advance Payments (“Milestone Advance Security”). The Dispute After completion the work, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the extension of the bonus window. GLNG Operations called on repayment of the balance of the Milestone Advance Payments, and Saipem sought to set off its liability to repay against its asserted entitlement to the bonus payments. Saipem applied to court to prevent GLNG Operations from calling on the milestone payment security.  GLNG Operations argued that section 67J should be read down in order to be limited to only payments under building contracts for building work.  The court rejected the proposition that section 67J of the QBCCA precluded reliance on the Milestone Advance Security. The court saw no reason to limit the provision, noting at [36] that “a building contract need not be a contract which is exclusively concerned with building work”. Complex arguments ensued. The Decision The Court noted that Saipem did have a case for equitable set off.  In determining the application for the injunction the Judge addressed the question of the balance of convenience and held that bank guarantees had the commercial purpose of being regarded equivalent to cash.  The court referred to the decision in Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd v Varnsdorf Pty Ltd emphasising that the purpose of bank guarantees in contracts was to provide security for any valid claim against the contractor, and to allocate risk between the parties pending the resolution of any dispute against them. This Judge outlined the general rule that a court will not enjoin the issuer of a performance guarantee or bond noting that these principles in conjunction with the commercial background of the contract, absent clear wording, do not allow for a construction inconsistent with an agreed allocation of risk in a contract.  Thus, in light of the parties’ agreement on the allocation of risk regarding who would be out of pocket in the case of a dispute, his honour held that the balance of convenience lay in GLNG Operations favour, and the injunction was not granted. Effect of the decision This decision confirms the highly regarded nature of bank guarantees by the courts. It provides authority for the the proposition that the courts will not allocate risk in a contractual dispute in a manner which is adverse to that as represented in the contract. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

Did you know that because of the COVID19/Coronavirus The Federal government has taken urgent steps to assist construction companies and other persons from insolvency? The federal government has taken the action to protect construction companies and other people at risk of insolvency given the current crisis. The Federal Government is temporarily increasing the current minimum threshold for creditors issuing a statutory demand on a company under the Corporations Act 2001 from $2,000 to $20,000 and for bankruptcy notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 , $5000 to 20,000. This will apply for six months. The statutory time frame for a company to respond to a statutory demand will be extended temporarily from 21 days to six months. This will apply for six months. The time a debtor has to respond to a bankruptcy notice will be temporarily increased from 21 days to six months. The extension will give a debtor more time to consider repayment arrangements before they could be forced into bankruptcy. This will apply for six months. When a debtor declares an intention to enter voluntary bankruptcy by making a declaration of intention to present a debtor’s petition there is a period of protection when unsecured creditors cannot take further action to recover debts. This period will be temporarily extended from 21 days to six months. This will give debtors more time to consider the options that are best for them. This will apply for six months. Important note Remember debt collection is governed by state, and so until a state government intervenes, creditors will still have the right to enforce debt against companies or individuals through the courts. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

Did you know that the Building Industry Fairness Act (QLD) 2017(BIF Act) repealed the Building Construction Industry (security of payments) Act (QLD) 2004? Amongst other key changes made the defects liability period notice for building and construction work was changed. The BIF Act also made changes to the QBCC Act in relation to retention monies or security held under a building contract. The BIF Act introduces: A statutory default defects liability period of 12 months from the date of practical completion, where a contract doesn’t provide a defects liability period; Penalties for not paying retention or security back to a contractor where there is no reasonable excuse at the end of the defects liability period; A requirement that a person withholding a retention under a building contract must provide a notice in the approved form notifying of the end of the defects liability period to the person whom a retention or security is being with held from; Though this doesn’t apply to a contracting party who enters into a building contract as a principal. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

What is Adjudication? Adjudication is a formal process established under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (BIF Act) in Queensland. It is designed to resolve disputes related to payment claims in the construction industry efficiently and effectively. This process allows contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers to obtain timely payments for their work, typically concluding within 30 to 40 days. The adjudicator's decision is binding, providing immediate relief to the aggrieved party. The Purpose of Adjudication The primary goal of adjudication is to ensure that payment disputes are resolved quickly, minimising financial strain on businesses involved in construction projects. In an industry where cash flow is critical, delays in payment can lead to significant challenges. Adjudication provides a mechanism that allows parties to settle disputes without resorting to lengthy and costly court proceedings. Key Features of the Adjudication Process 1. Binding Decisions Adjudicators issue decisions that are binding on both parties involved in the dispute. This means that the party ordered to pay must comply with the decision unless they successfully challenge it on limited grounds. 2. Strict Timelines The BIF Act establishes strict timelines for each stage of the adjudication process. For example, once a claimant submits an adjudication application, the respondent has a limited timeframe—typically 10 business days—to submit their adjudication response. 3. Limited Grounds for Appeal The grounds for appealing an adjudicator's decision are severely restricted, primarily allowing appeals only on jurisdictional grounds. This limitation emphasises the importance of adhering strictly to procedural requirements throughout the adjudication process. The Adjudication Process: Step-by-Step The adjudication process in Queensland follows a structured sequence of steps: Initiation of Claim : The claimant must submit a valid payment claim under the BIF Act, detailing the work completed and specifying the amount owed. Submission of Adjudication Application : If payment is not received or if there are disputes regarding the amount, the claimant can lodge an adjudication application with the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC). This application must include relevant documents such as: A copy of the payment claim. Details of the construction contract. Any payment schedule provided by the respondent. Respondent's Obligations : Upon receiving the adjudication application, the respondent has a specified period (generally 10 business days) to submit their response. This response must address the claims made and provide reasons for any amounts withheld. Adjudicator's Decision : After reviewing both parties' submissions, the adjudicator will issue a decision typically within 10 business days post-response. In complex cases involving claims over $750,000, this timeframe may be extended. Key Considerations in Adjudication 1. Compliance with Requirements Both parties must adhere strictly to procedural requirements set out in the BIF Act. Any failure to meet these requirements can jeopardize a party's position in the adjudication process. 2. Evidence Submission Claimants should provide comprehensive evidence supporting their claims, including contracts, payment schedules, and any correspondence related to the dispute. This documentation is crucial for substantiating their case before the adjudicator. 3. Potential Penalties If an adjudicated amount is not paid within 5 business days of receiving the decision or within another timeframe established by the adjudicator, significant penalties may apply—up to 200 penalty units under Queensland law. Advantages of Adjudication Speed : The expedited nature of adjudication allows for quicker resolutions compared to traditional litigation. Cost-Effectiveness : Generally less expensive than court proceedings due to reduced legal fees and shorter timelines. Preservation of Relationships : The less adversarial nature of adjudication can help maintain professional relationships between parties involved in construction projects. Challenges Faced in Adjudication Despite its advantages, there are challenges associated with adjudication: Strict Deadlines : The rigid timelines can be daunting; any failure to comply may result in unfavorable outcomes. Limited Recourse for Dissatisfaction : Parties may feel dissatisfied with outcomes but have limited options for recourse due to stringent appeal processes. Risk of Strategic Use : There are concerns about parties potentially using adjudication strategically rather than genuinely seeking resolution. Conclusion Adjudication plays a vital role in ensuring that payment disputes within Queensland's construction industry are resolved swiftly and effectively. The BIF Act provides a robust framework designed to protect contractors and subcontractors from non-payment while promoting fairness and efficiency in financial transactions related to construction work. For those involved in construction projects facing payment disputes, understanding and navigating the adjudication process is essential. Engaging with professionals who specialise in this area can significantly enhance your chances of achieving a favorable outcome. If you find yourself facing a payment dispute or need assistance navigating the adjudication process, Merlo Law is here to help. Our experienced lawyers specialises in construction law and has successfully handled numerous adjudication cases across Queensland. We understand the urgency of these matters and are committed to protecting your rights. Contact us today at 1300 110 253 or via email at info@merlolaw.com.au . Let us provide you with the expert guidance you need to navigate your adjudication challenges effectively. Don't wait—time is of the essence in these situations! For more information on adjudication processes and requirements, visit the QBCC's Adjudication Registry or explore further details on commercial payment disputes . This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

Understanding Economic Loss Economic loss refers to financial losses incurred by individuals or organisations due to various circumstances. This type of loss is distinct from property damage or other non-economic damages, as it must be a tangible loss identifiable through legitimate financial statements. Economic loss arises when the value of an asset diminishes, often without any accompanying physical damage to property. In the context of building defects, economic loss can manifest when latent defects lead to significant repair costs or diminished property value. For example, if an apartment owner discovers hidden structural issues after purchase, the costs associated with rectifying these defects can result in substantial economic loss. What Are Latent Defects? Latent defects are hidden flaws in a property that cannot be detected through ordinary observation or careful inspection. These defects may remain dormant until they manifest as significant issues, often leading to economic loss for property owners. While contracts can define and limit the scope of latent defects, they do not eliminate the inherent risks associated with them. Latent defects can include issues such as faulty plumbing, electrical problems, or structural weaknesses that are not immediately evident. These defects pose a serious concern for apartment owners, particularly when they are unaware of such issues at the time of purchase. Challenges with Economic Loss Claims The legal principle commonly referred to as the rule against economic loss presents significant challenges for subsequent owners of buildings with latent defects. Typically, if you acquire a property without having contracted for the relevant construction work, you may find it difficult to claim damages. This is primarily because the law generally does not allow recovery for pure economic loss, which is defined as the financial detriment experienced solely from overpaying for a property due to defects. In 2011, the Court of Appeal clarified that contractors typically do not owe duties to avoid causing pure economic loss, particularly to subsequent owners who did not directly engage them. This legal landscape creates uncertainty for apartment owners seeking recourse for latent defects. Legal Precedents: Brookfield Multiplex Case A landmark case, Brookfield Multiplex v Owners Corporation Strata Plan 61288 [2014] HCA 36, has set a significant precedent regarding latent defects and economic loss claims. The High Court ruled that builders do not owe a duty of care to subsequent owners concerning pure economic loss resulting from latent defects in common property. This decision effectively extinguished many rights that body corporates and apartment owners might have had against builders in Queensland. Case Background The dispute arose between Brookfield Multiplex and the Owners Corporation regarding latent building defects in the common property of an apartment complex. The Owners Corporation argued that Brookfield owed them a duty to exercise reasonable care in constructing the building to avoid causing pure economic loss due to latent defects. Initially, the Supreme Court of New South Wales found that Brookfield did not owe such a duty of care. The court emphasised that the contractual negotiations between Brookfield and the developer adequately allocated risk and liability concerning building defects. On appeal, the NSW Court of Appeal overturned this decision, asserting that a duty of care existed regarding certain structural defects. However, this ruling was ultimately reversed by the High Court. High Court Decision The High Court unanimously found that Brookfield did not owe a duty of care to avoid causing pure economic loss from latent defects to either the developer or subsequent owners. The court highlighted that the contractual terms between Brookfield and the developer provided sufficient protection against potential claims related to latent defects. The judges noted that it was up to the legislature to enact protective measures for subsequent purchasers. While both New South Wales and Victoria have implemented such legislation, Queensland has yet to establish similar protections for apartment owners facing latent building defects. Implications for Apartment Owners The implications of the Brookfield case underscore the limited rights available to apartment owners regarding latent building defects in Queensland. Understanding your rights and obligations in this context is crucial for safeguarding your investment in property. Limited Recourse : The decision has effectively extinguished any rights against builders concerning latent defects in common property for many body corporates in Queensland. This creates a challenging environment for apartment owners seeking redress for economic losses stemming from hidden flaws. Contractual Protections : Given the lack of legislative protections in Queensland, it is essential for developers and builders to ensure that construction contracts contain express warranties addressing potential defective works. Extending liability periods beyond standard durations can provide additional security against future claims. Investigating Claims : Apartment owners should act promptly if they suspect latent defects in their properties. Delays can jeopardise their ability to seek redress for economic losses associated with these issues. What Can You Do? For developers and builders, it is crucial to ensure that all construction contracts include express warranties addressing potential defective works. Consider extending the liability period beyond the standard 12 months following practical completion to provide greater protection against latent defects. For apartment owners and body corporates, Queensland legislation offers some protection through automatically subrogated rights under construction contracts concerning works affecting common property. However, enforcing these rights can be challenging if owners are not parties to the original contract and lack access to relevant documentation. Importance of Timely Action It is vital for body corporates and apartment owners to investigate any potential claims promptly. Delays can jeopardise your ability to seek redress for latent defects. Additionally, you may explore claims under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme or Australian Consumer Law, though these rights arise only under specific circumstances. Seeking legal advice as soon as possible is recommended. Protecting Yourself When Purchasing Property When buying an apartment off the plan or an existing unit, thorough research on the builder and developer is essential. Check the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) registers for any prior issues related to building defects. Conducting a comprehensive search of body corporate records can also reveal important information about past meetings and financial planning regarding capital works projects, shedding light on potential latent defects. Research Builders : Investigate previous projects completed by builders and developers. Look for reviews or complaints regarding their work quality. Body Corporate Records : Review minutes from annual general meetings and financial statements related to sinking funds; this information may highlight past issues with building maintenance or planned repairs. Professional Inspections : Consider hiring qualified professionals to conduct thorough inspections before finalising any purchase agreements. Conclusion The implications of the Brookfield case highlight the limited rights available to apartment owners regarding latent building defects in Queensland. Understanding your rights and obligations in this context is crucial for safeguarding your investment in property. If you find yourself dealing with issues related to property damage or building defects, it is crucial to act swiftly. At Merlo Law, our experienced lawyers specialise in construction law and are well-versed in navigating the complexities of latent defects and economic loss claims. We understand the urgency of these matters and are committed to protecting your rights as a property owner. Contact us today at 1300 110 253 or via email at info@merlolaw.com.au. Let us provide you with the expert guidance you need to address your concerns effectively. Don’t wait—time is of the essence when it comes to safeguarding your investment and ensuring your rights are upheld! This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.

Building and construction law is a fundamental aspect of the construction industry, encompassing a wide range of regulations and legal principles that ensure projects are completed efficiently, safely, and within legal parameters. Whether you're a builder, contractor, homeowner, or stakeholder in a construction project, understanding the intricacies of construction law is essential for safeguarding your interests and facilitating successful project outcomes. This guide explores the key elements of building and construction law, providing valuable insights to help you navigate the complex legal landscape effectively. What is Building and Construction Law? Building and construction law is a specialised branch of law that governs all aspects of construction and building works. It encompasses a diverse range of regulations and statutes that are often specific to each State or Territory in Australia. This legal framework addresses issues such as contract formation, licensing, regulatory compliance, and dispute resolution, ensuring that construction projects adhere to established standards and legal requirements. Understanding building and construction law is crucial for all parties involved in construction projects, including builders, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and property owners. It provides a structured approach to managing the complexities of construction projects, from the initial planning stages to project completion and beyond. Why is Understanding Construction Law Important for Stakeholders? A thorough understanding of construction law offers several advantages for stakeholders in the construction industry: Contractual Clarity: Ensures that all parties clearly understand their rights and obligations, reducing the risk of misunderstandings and conflicts. Regulatory Compliance:  Helps in adhering to building codes and standards, avoiding legal penalties and ensuring project safety and quality. Dispute Resolution: Provides mechanisms for resolving disputes efficiently, whether through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or litigation. Risk Management:  Identifies potential legal risks early, allowing for proactive measures to mitigate them and protect investments. By being well-versed in construction law, stakeholders can navigate legal challenges more effectively, ensuring smoother project execution and successful outcomes. What are the Relevant Statutes Regulating the Construction Industry? The construction industry in Australia is regulated by a combination of federal, state, and local laws. The  National Construction Code (NCC) , formerly known as the Building Code of Australia, sets the minimum requirements for safety, health, amenity, and accessibility in the design and construction of all new buildings and building works. Each State and Territory has its own legislation and regulations that address specific aspects of the construction industry, such as: Contracting and Licensing:  Governs the qualifications and licensing requirements for builders and contractors. Insurance and Warranties : Mandates insurance coverage and warranty provisions for building works. Employment Laws:  Regulates the employment conditions of workers within the construction industry. Local Government Planning:  Oversees zoning, land use, and environmental regulations impacting construction projects. These statutes collectively ensure that construction activities are performed responsibly, safely, and in compliance with established legal standards. Do You Need a License to Carry Out Building Work? Yes, obtaining a license is a legal requirement for carrying out building work in Australia. Each State and Territory defines what constitutes building work and specifies when a license is necessary. For instance: New South Wales (NSW) : A license is required for residential building work valued at more than $5,000 in labor and materials. Queensland : A  QBCC license is mandatory for various types of building work, with specific requirements based on the scope and value of the project. Carrying out building work without the appropriate license can lead to severe penalties, including hefty fines and potential imprisonment. Additionally, unauthorised builders may only be entitled to claim reasonable remuneration, covering the cost of materials and labour without any profit. How to Apply for a Building License in Different States? The process for obtaining a building license varies across States and Territories. Here are the governing bodies responsible for licensing in key regions: New South Wales : Applications are handled by NSW Fair Trading . Victoria : The Victorian Building Association  oversees the licensing process. Queensland : Licensing is managed by the  Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) . Applicants must meet specific criteria, which typically include demonstrating relevant experience, qualifications, and passing necessary examinations. It's essential to contact the respective governing body in your State to obtain detailed information on the licensing requirements and procedures. What are the Different Categories of Building Licenses? Building licenses are categorized based on the type and scope of work performed. In Queensland, for example, licensing is divided into types and classes: Types :  Contractor : Authorises contracting and advertising for work.  Nominee Supervisor : Allows supervision of building work.  Site Supervisor : Permits on-site supervision duties.  Fire Occupational : Specific to fire-related construction activities. Classes:   Vary based on the nature of the work, such as irrigation or steel fixing.  General building licenses are further divided into low rise, medium rise, and open categories depending on the building type. In NSW, there are three primary categories: Contractor Licence : Enables contracting and advertising for work. Qualified Supervisor Certificate:  Permits supervision of specified work. Endorsed Contractor Licence:  Combines contractor licensing with qualifications for supervision. Understanding the appropriate license category is crucial for legal compliance and the successful execution of construction projects. What Happens if You Carry Out Building Works Without a License? Undertaking building work without the necessary license is a serious offense with significant consequences: Queensland :  First Offence:  250 penalty units.  Second Offence:  300 penalty units.  Third or Subsequent Offense : 350 penalty points or up to 1 year’s imprisonment.  Unauthorised builders may only claim costs for materials and labour, excluding profits. New South Wales:   First Offence:  Up to 1,000 penalty units.  Second or Subsequent Offence:  Up to 500 penalty units or imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both. These penalties emphasise the importance of obtaining the appropriate licenses before commencing any building work. Additionally, working without a license can damage your professional reputation and hinder future business opportunities. Is a Written Construction Contract Necessary? Yes, having a written construction contract is essential for both domestic and commercial building projects, especially when they exceed certain monetary thresholds: Queensland:   Domestic Building Work:  Contracts are mandatory for projects costing more than $3,300.  Commercial Building Work:  Required for projects over $10,000. New South Wales:   Residential Building Work:  Written contracts are necessary for projects over $5,000 (GST included).  Commercial Building Work: Contracts are required for projects exceeding $20,000. A written contract outlines the scope of work, project timelines, payment terms, dispute resolution procedures, and warranties. It serves as a legal safeguard, ensuring clarity and protecting the interests of all parties involved in the construction project. Are There Laws Regulating Deposit Amounts in Construction Contracts? Yes, there are specific regulations governing the maximum deposit amounts in construction contracts to protect consumers and ensure fair practices: Queensland:   Domestic Building Work (≥ $20,000):  Maximum deposit of 5% of the total contract price.  Domestic Building Work ($3,300 - $20,000):  Maximum deposit of 10%. New South Wales:   All Residential Building Work:  Maximum deposit is 10% of the contract price. These regulations help prevent undue financial burdens on clients and maintain a balanced contractual relationship between builders and clients. Adhering to these deposit limits is crucial for legal compliance and fostering trust in professional engagements. How to Handle Construction Disputes Effectively? Construction disputes can arise from various issues such as payment delays, defective work, or breaches of contract. Effective handling of these disputes involves several steps: Review the Building Contract:  Understand the rights and obligations outlined in the contract to determine your legal standing. Understand Relevant Laws and Regulations:  Each State or Territory has specific laws governing construction disputes, which dictate the available remedies and procedures. Choose Appropriate Resolution Methods:     Negotiation : Informal discussions to reach a mutual agreement.    Mediation : Involves a neutral third party to facilitate a resolution.    Arbitration : A binding process where an arbitrator makes a decision.    Litigation : Legal proceedings in court for dispute resolution. Seek Legal Advice:  Consulting with a construction lawyer like Merlo Law can provide expert guidance and improve the chances of a favorable outcome. Implementing structured dispute resolution mechanisms can minimise project delays, reduce costs, and preserve professional relationships. Key Takeaways Comprehensive Understanding : Building and construction law covers a broad spectrum of legal aspects crucial for successful construction projects. Licensing is Mandatory : Obtaining the appropriate building license is essential to avoid severe penalties and ensure legal compliance. Written Contracts are Essential:  They provide clear terms and protect the interests of all parties involved, especially in larger projects. Regulated Deposits Protect Consumers:  Adhering to deposit limits fosters trust and maintains balanced contractual relationships. Effective Dispute Resolution:  Proactive approaches to handling disputes can save time, reduce costs, and preserve professional relationships. Stay Informed on Legislation:  Keeping up-to-date with federal, state, and local regulations is vital for compliance and project success. Seek Professional Legal Advice:  Engaging construction lawyers like Merlo Law can provide valuable insights and assistance in navigating complex legal issues. By understanding and applying the principles of building and construction law, stakeholders can ensure that their construction projects are legally sound, efficiently managed, and successful. This publication considers legal and technical issues in a general way. It is not intended to be legal advice. Any legal advice is qualified on the basis that the reader should immediately confirm the information relied upon with Merlo Law. We look forward to being of assistance.