Can a company in liquidation adjudicate? Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited & Anor v Astec Projects Limited, or what happens when an irresistible force meets an immoveable object?

“Art is born when the temporary touched the eternal; the shock of beauty is when the irresistible force hits the immoveable post” G K Chesterton

There have been debates for years about the pros and cons of owners withholding retainage (usually 5% or 10%, depending on each state’s retainage laws or local “industry standard”) from prime contractors. Typically, the primes will, in turn, withhold retainage from all subcontractors. However, in these crazy times, when the future of private and public projects is unknown and profit margins are in question, it might be a good time to revisit this issue.

We have previously reported on the developing area of adjudication by insolvent companies, now the subject of another key judgment. In Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited and Astec Projects Limited (in liquidation) [2020] the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has provided a further clear example of the type of strict conditions that will need to be satisfied to enable such adjudications to proceed.

It is perhaps an inevitable result of the current global pandemic that employers, main contractors and subcontractors alike will be dusting down the guarantees they have been given, or provided to others, in respect of their ongoing projects. For those who have been given them they need to establish what security those guarantees actually provide and, perhaps as importantly, how quickly they will pay out.

“Your Courage, Your Cheerfulness, Your Resolution; Will Bring Us Victory” – Ministry of Information, 1939

The phrase “unprecedented times” seems to crop up in almost every recent article and news report and there is no doubt that it is a true statement. It is therefore rather nice that some things are reassuringly the same. This is true of my recent experience of advising on a number of adjudications, in this period of lock-down.

However, for this to happen it will require the licensing regime to embrace new thinking.

For several years I have been advocating for unique thinking to apply in respect of how the licensing regime should address situations where contractors are experiencing financial distress or are insolvent.

There is no bigger fan of adjudication than me. While not perfect, I nevertheless believe that adjudication has changed the construction industry for the better since its inception in 2004.

The impact of the COVID-19 crisis and the health-related measures implemented by the government to contain the spread of this deadly virus will unfortunately result in the economy going into recession.

In an article in the Financial Review, the results of a survey of economists revealed that even taking into account all the government’s stimulus and job-saving measures, the Australian economy will be in recession until June 2021.

This week’s TGIF considers the circumstances in which a special purpose liquidator will be appointed to investigate claims the liquidator has already determined are ‘not viable’ in the decision in Williams & Kersten Pty Ltd v Walton Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Walton Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd (in liq)

This week’s TGIF considers a refusal by the Federal Court to declare void or terminate a DOCA on the grounds of alleged prejudice & injustice or due to omissions in the administrator’s report to creditors.

Background

R Developments Pty Ltd (the Builder) operated a residential construction business and entered into a contract for the construction of a residential property in 2012.