It is fair to say that my initial reading of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (BIFA) a little over 12 months ago left me shocked in terms of the sheer scale and magnitude of the reforms and changes proposed to be imposed on the industry.

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Hosking v Extend N Build Pty Limited [2018] NSWCA 149, which considered whether payments made by a third party to an insolvent company’s creditors could be recovered by the liquidator as unfair preferences.

What happened?

While most Australians enter construction contracts with no issues whatsoever, there remain instances in which builders take advantage of consumers. For instance, we draw attention to the example of Tevita and Siosiana Ungounga’s (“the Ungoungas”) and theircompany, T & T Sandstone Construction Pty Ltd (“T & T Sandstone”), recently published by NSW Fair Trading.

A recent NSW Supreme Court decision has decided that an insolvent contractor can claim under Security of Payment legislation, rejecting Victorian Court of Appeal precedent as "plainly wrong". It might have significant ramifications for participants in the building and construction industry across Australia.

In Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 412, the NSW Supreme Court considered the extent to which Security of Payment (SOP) legislation can be relied upon by an insolvent contractor.

The New South Wales Supreme Court recently confirmed that an insolvent construction contractor is not able to immediately enforce its right to payment of an adjudication decision under the NSW Security of Payment legislation (Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)) against another party which has an offsetting claim.

New legislation has been introduced in the UK which restricts the rights of parties to construction contracts to terminate or even suspend work. This means that even if your contract says you can terminate or suspend – for example, for non-payment – you may not in the future be able to exercise this right. These reforms are likely to lead to significant changes to how parties operate their contracts and credit lines.

In standard building contracts most commonly used in the UK, a party is entitled to terminate the contract if the other party is insolvent (Clause 91 of NEC3 and NEC4 and Clause 8.5 and 8.10 of JCT/SBCC).

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 provides measures for businesses that are designed to provide temporary reliefs during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as permanent measures for companies in financial difficulty.

On 17 June 2020, the much anticipated Judgment in the Supreme Court case of Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] was handed down.

This article analyses the key outcomes of the decision, however, in order to contextualise the Judgment we first provide an overview of the relevant background.

The Technology & Construction Court

In light of the fast moving pace of developments on COVID-19, and the varying degrees to which information is available to our clients in the projects & construction sector in relation to its impact on their operations, we will be circulating a regular update that addresses the following:

Summary

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) came into force on 26 June 2020 after a fast-tracked consultation process. Intended to provide a lifeline to struggling businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, it consists of temporary measures, meant to alleviate the short-term disruption caused by the pandemic and permanent measures, which are more broadly designed to assist companies in times of difficulty.