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).

The Senate has announced a national inquiry into insolvency in the Australian construction industry (Inquiry).^[1] 

A recent decision by Justice Beech of the Western Australian Supreme Court in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10[1] has considered the issue of whether an adjudication determination made under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (the Construction Contracts Act) can be enforced by an insolvent company.

SUMMARY

There are various Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) disasters occurring in the construction industry following contractors’ insolvency or default. These typically arise from a failure to register against leased/hired or retention of title (ROT) equipment or materials, late registration, or incorrect financing statements.  

In some cases, legal owners of equipment or materials have lost title to those goods or lost out to secured financiers in a priority dispute.   

Like the mythical bird that dies and then resurrects, phoenixing is the deliberate liquidation of a company to avoid paying tax, creditors or employees and then the ‘resurrection’ of the business through a different entity.

It is illegal and particularly prevalent in the construction sector. It’s time for the states to take action against phoenixing through better licensing of builders.

The spate of insolvencies in the NSW construction sector shows no signs of easing. On 24 October 2013, the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act Amendment Bill 2013 was introduced into Parliament. The Bill is part of the government’s broader reform package to address the level of insolvency being experienced in the NSW construction sector.

The first significant decision¹ under the Australian Personal Properties Securities Act 2009 has followed New Zealand and Canadian law.

The case involved competing claims by a general security holder and a lessor to three civil construction vehicles located in the Northern Territory.

The relationship between the parties