When a contractor pays money into court to discharge a lien of a sub-contractor, can that money only be used to discharge that lien holder’s claim?  Or is it available to pay the liens of all eventual lien holders?  In Canadian Western Bank v.

Resin Systems Inc. v. Global Composite Manufacturing Inc., [2008] O.J. No. 5427, (Ont. S.C.J., Commercial List)

Resin developed certain equipment used to manufacture transmission poles. Resin entered into a manufacturing and licence agreement with Global Composite, and leased the equipment to Global Composite to make and improve the product. The agreements provided Global Composite was to keep the equipment free of any lien or claim, unless there was the express written consent of Resin.

Following our previous updates (Ebert Construction Receivership – What You Need to Know and Ebert Construction – Receivership and Liquidation), on 12 November 2018 the High Court ordered that the Receivers of Ebert Construction Ltd (in rec and liq) (Ebert) be appointed as the receivers

Section 113 of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) outlaws pay when paid provisions, with one exception. It is permissible for a Contractor to use a pay when paid provision to deny payment of outstanding amounts due to its Sub-contractor where the Client at the top of the supply chain has gone bust. The general consensus is of course that this exception is unfair. It is essentially asking the Sub-contractors to act as insurers of both the main Contractor and Client insolvency.

In times of economic uncertainty, when the prospect of insolvency is prevalent, contracting parties need, more than ever, to be aware of issues that could have an unanticipated effect on their position. The existence of Retention of Title (RoT) clauses in contracts, particularly in the construction context, and the effect of the relevant legislation, need to be considered carefully.

In William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd, the judgment of which can be accessed here, the consequences of an anachronistic piece of contract drafting cost the losing party over £1 million. The issue here was whether or not the contractor under a building sub-contract could successfully pass the risk of the employer’s insolvency onto its sub-contractor by means of what is commonly known as a “pay when paid” clause.

In the construction industry, contractor insolvency delays projects, increases costs and may deprive the employer of remedies and third parties of meaningful warranty protection. In 2008, it was reported that the number of construction firms facing grave financial concerns was 547 per cent higher than in 2007 (Building, 14 November 2008). As contractor insolvencies are likely to increase in 2009, how can an employer protect its position at the start of a project and when contractor insolvency occurs?  

Contractual safeguards  

Insolvency of a contractor or a sub-contractor during the course of a building project has the potential to incur other parties involved in the project in considerable costs.

Here are some of the things to bear in mind in case a contractor or sub-contractor becomes insolvent.

Case summary:

When a contractor failed to pay certain agreed invoices the sub-contractor issued a winding up petition. The contractor applied to halt the advertising of the petition on the grounds that the debts were bona fide disputed on substantial grounds as there was a cross claim which exceeded the amount claimed. The court refused to halt proceedings because the absence of a withholding notice under the HGCRA meant that there were no substantial grounds for disputing the petition.

Comment:

Some bankruptcy experts predict an increase in business failures for government contractors in the coming years. Increased demands and constraints on government spending will stress both prime contractors and subcontractors. As federal regulations generally place the burden of compliance on prime contractors, a financially distressed subcontractor is a concern not only for the sub, but also for the prime contractor.

A sub’s financial problems jeopardize the sub’s ability to perform its subcontract and, thus, pose serious threats to a prime contractor, including: