This week’s TGIF considers the case of Bowesco Pty Ltd v Westpoint Management Ltd [2015] WASCA 184, which considered whether a guarantor had a right of subrogation enabling it to be repaid in advance of the second ranking creditor. 

BACKGROUND

The Need for Reform

Insolvency figures bring into stark light the reality of business in the construction industry. In the last financial year, 13% of companies entering external administration in the Northern Territory were from the construction sector.

Significant causes of contractor failure include inadequate cash flow, poor strategic management of the business, inadequate contract administration skills and a lack of working capital to see a project or a dispute through.

The latest wave of reforms to hit the construction industry in Queensland is causing more than just a ripple. You can now be automatically excluded from acting as a director or senior manager of a construction company for 3 years, even if you are not at fault.

You can lose your livelihood quickly

The construction game has always been competitive and risky. There are traps everywhere. Despite this, people still tend to be surprised and upset when things go bad.

There has been some recent discussion around the use by insolvency practitioners of the security of payment legislation. The benefits of engaging this process are obvious – there is an opportunity to secure payment for the insolvent company in a quick and cost efficient manner while also avoiding the financial burden of a security for costs order which the insolvent company (and hence insolvency practitioner) is likely to face in court proceedings.  

You can lose your equipment by failing to register your interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR).

Failing to consider the impact of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) is still having dramatic adverse implications for many construction industry participants. 

The insolvency of one of the principals, contractors or subcontractors can seriously impact a construction project at all levels of the supply chain. Infrastructure and Projects partner, Ted Williams look at the issue and some practical thoughts on drafting contracts to help mitigate these risks.

“How did you go bankrupt?" Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” ? Ernest Hemingway

On 16 January 2015, Justice Beech, of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, handed down his decision in the matters of Hamersley HMS Pty Ltd v Davis [2015] WASC 14 and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10 (the Hamersley Decisions). In both matters, Hamersley sought to set aside determinations made by an adjudicator pursuant to the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (CCA) and Forge Group Construction Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Forge) sought leave to enforce the determinations.

Key Points:

Principals or contractors dealing with insolvent downstream companies should ensure they can properly substantiate any counterclaims.

Usually a principal is not entitled to rely on a set-off or counterclaim to resist court proceedings to recover a debt under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act). However because of the operation of section 553C of the Corporations Act, the situation is different if the claimant is in liquidation.

Insolvent subcontractor’s claim

A recent Western Australian decision has provided guidance on the limits of an insolvent contractor’s ability to enforce an adjudication determination where the principal has an offsetting claim.

Companies in liquidation prevented from obtaining judgment for interim entitlements under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic)

Today the Victorian Supreme Court handed down a decision which provides certainty for the construction industry as to whether companies in liquidation can seek to recover interim entitlements under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act).