Have the tough times in the construction industry changed? It would appear not despite an uptick in the New South Wales economy. “I just want to be paid” is the title of the report just released by the Senate Economics References Committee.[1]
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
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 transition from 2009 to 2010 sees some significant legislative chapters closing, notably the Companies Act 2006, Rome I and II, the Banking Act 2009 and the Lisbon Treaty.
Following the House of Lords' decision in Melville Dundas in April, the TCC has now decided in the case of Pierce Design v Johnston on 17 July that the case has a wide application - but unreasonable failure to pay may still be penalised.
The decision of the House of Lords in Melville Dundas in April resolved a tension between the payment provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 ("the Act") and contractual clauses applying to payments after termination of building contracts.
The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors' Report) Regulations 2013 (Regulations) to amend the structure of UK annual reports have been published and laid before Parliament.
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and institutional bodies have published the following guidance in relation to corporate governance and directors' remuneration in the last few months.