Security of payment

Last updated

Security of Payment refers to any system designed to ensure that contractors and sub-contractors are paid even in case of dispute. This can involve a system of progress payments, interim arbitration decisions, or a system which legally requires a company to pay an invoice within a set number of days, regardless of whether the company believes they are accurate.

Contents

Security of Payment in Australia

Background

Security of Payment legislation has been introduced by each Australian State and Territory to allow for the rapid determination of progress claims under building contracts or sub-contracts and contracts for the supply of goods or services in the building industry. This process, which establishes adjudication as the primary dispute resolution mechanism, was designed to ensure cash flow to businesses in the construction industry, without the parties getting tied up in lengthy and expensive litigation or arbitration. In addition to quick payment, the scheme also allows for security of payment to be provided in stages or payment schedule.

NSW was the first State to implement a legislative scheme in 1999, with the remaining States following suit between 2002 and 2009. There is no federal Security of Payment legislation in Australia.

Security of Payment Legislation in Australia
StateNSWACTQldSAVicWANTTas
ActBuilding and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002Construction Contracts Act 2004Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act 2004Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009
RegulationBuilding and Construction Industry Security of Payment Regulation 2008N/ABuilding and Construction Industry Payments Regulation 2004Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Regulations 2011Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Regulations 2013Construction Contracts RegulationsConstruction Contracts (Security of Payments) Regulations 2004N/A
Responsible Government Department NSW Fair Trading Environment and Planning DirectorateBuilding and Construction CommissionOffice of the Small Business CommissionerVictorian Building AssociationBuilding CommissionBuilding Advisory ServicesBuilding Standards and Occupational Licensing

Reviews of Security of Payment Legislation

Since 1974 there have been at least 30 reviews, discussion papers, and inquiries at the state and federal level that are related to financing in the building and construction industry. [1]

There is currently a federal review underway, led by John Murray AM. The Murray Review was announced on 21 December 2016, with a progress report due by 30 September 2017. A final report with recommendations is due to the Minister for Employment no later than 31 December 2017. [2]

The NSW Office of Fair Trading is also conducting a full review of the NSW Security of Payment legislation following a discussion paper released in December 2015. Submissions closed on 26 February 2016. There is no publicly available final due date for this report. [3] [4]

Adjudication and Authorised Nominating Authorities

Adjudication using a third party is much quicker rather than litigation through a court. An adjudicator’s determination must be made within 10 days of receipt of application. It is also less expensive. An adjudicator’s determination is binding on the parties and claims can be recovered as a debt owing in a Court.

Despite the Security of Payment Act, lengthy litigation disputes do still persist. The scale of the problem is still huge, as witnessed by "Australia Gas Firms Locked in Legal Battles with Contractors"

In addition an adjudicator's decision may be overturned as well, the case of Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd [5] has allowed an adjudicator's determination for a non-jurisdictional error to be overturned through judicial review. [6] In another case, it went against Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport [7] which previously held judicial intervention was limited to cases of a breach of essential and basic requirements.

There is a strong perception that Adjudicators are biased in favour of claimants, especially in the States using the 'East Coast' model of Security of Payment legislation. Claimants in these jurisdictions apply for adjudication of a payment dispute through an Authorised Nominating Authority rather than agree an Adjudicator with the respondent (as is the case in the 'West Coast' model). This perception is caused by the perceived ability for claimants to pressure ANAs into providing an Adjudicator that will favour the claimant's case. [8]

In response to this issue, Queensland abolished Authorised Nominating Authorities in December 2014 amendments to its Security of Payment legislation. They have been replaced with an Adjudication Registrar. However this has led to new challenges, with the number of withdrawn Security of Payment applications increasing from 33% to 94% between December 2014 and September 2015. [9]

Challenges associated with Security of Payment Legislation in Australia

The December 2015 Senate Inquiry into Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry found that Security of Payment legislation has been effective where it was used. However it is underutilised by subcontractors for several reasons, chiefly: [10]

  1. There is still a major power imbalance between subcontractors and contractors;
  2. There is confusion and poor understanding of the legislative scheme; and
  3. Accessing the scheme is still costly.

Power imbalance

Although the Security of Payment legislation was designed to reduce the power imbalance in the payment chain, the scheme’s own take-up has been deterred by this same power imbalance.

Fear of retribution, threatening behaviour and intimidation from those higher in the contractual chain act as a strong deterrent to using the legislation. The intimidation may be indirect, such as a questionnaire including “have you ever used the SoP legislation?”. [11]

Further, subcontractors fear or have actually been threatened by head contractors that if they make a payment claim they will be cut off from future work. In fact, the likelihood of ability to get future work can be the basis for a subcontractor’s decision to use the Act.

Confusion and poor understanding

The Collins Review found that there is a lack of knowledge and awareness among subcontractors of what rights and enforcement options are available. This is compounded by the lack of education and support for subcontractors attempting to utilise the Act. [12]

A second contributory factor is the relative lack of financial acumen amongst smaller-scale contractors, who have not needed to acquire financial or legal skills during their career.

The short timeframes can in fact negatively affect parties as they may not realise they are in a dispute and their time under the legislation has started to run. Alternatively, subcontractors may be deliberately strung out by parties with greater legal resources and cash flow.

Costliness of dispute resolution

Short time frames have sped up the rate at which subcontractors can recover payment, ensuring critical cash flow for claimants.

However there has been a significant amount of litigation created by the Security of Payments legislation around Australia. According to the Collins Review, even a simple claim with an adjudicator and legal fees can cost around $4,000-5,000, meaning that subcontractors may be underpaid by $4,000 per progress payment without fear of dispute resolution action. [13]

The cost of enforcing Adjudicators’ findings has proven to be also a disincentive for potential claimants. An enforcement action requires considerable time, effort and financial outlay borne directly by subcontractors. Subcontractors who engage legal advice in order to seek overdue progress payments often emerge less well-off than subcontractors who cut their losses. Larger respondents have been able to string-out court action until the claimant either becomes insolvent or ends the legal action. [14]

Private measures

Commonly, businesses in the building and construction industry in Australia will include the following statement on payment claims or tax invoices:

"This is a payment claim made pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009 (ACT)” or "This is a payment claim made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 NSW". These Statements may vary depending in which Province the Claim is made. However this has not been a requirement in NSW since legislative amendments in 2013.

Security of Payment in the UK

The UK's security of payment scheme can be found in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. This Act was amended in 2009 by the passage of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 .

Related Research Articles

Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation, including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants, to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Workers' compensation</span> Form of insurance

Workers' compensation or workers' comp is a form of insurance providing wage replacement and medical benefits to employees injured in the course of employment in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee's right to sue his or her employer for the tort of negligence. The trade-off between assured, limited coverage and lack of recourse outside the worker compensation system is known as "the compensation bargain.” One of the problems that the compensation bargain solved is the problem of employers becoming insolvent as a result of high damage awards. The system of collective liability was created to prevent that and thus to ensure security of compensation to the workers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liquidation</span> Winding-up of a company

Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end in Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and many other countries. The assets and property of the company are redistributed. Liquidation is also sometimes referred to as winding-up or dissolution, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.

A mechanic's lien is a security interest in the title to property for the benefit of those who have supplied labor or materials that improve the property. The lien exists for both real property and personal property. In the realm of real property, it is called by various names, including, generically, construction lien. The term "lien" comes from a French root, with a meaning similar to link, which is itself ultimately descended from the Latin ligamen, meaning "bond" and ligare, meaning "to bind". Mechanic's liens on property in the United States date from the 18th century.

The Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, or informally the Cole Royal Commission, was a Royal Commission established by the Australian government to inquire into and report upon alleged misconduct in the building and construction industry in Australia. The establishment of the Commission followed various unsuccessful attempts by the Federal Government to impose greater regulation upon the conduct of industrial relations in that industry.

The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 was passed by the Australian State of Victoria to allow for the rapid determination of progress claims under building contracts or sub-contracts and contracts for the supply of goods or services in the building industry. This process was designed to ensure cash flow to businesses in the building industry, without parties get tied up in lengthy and expensive litigation or arbitration.

The Joint Contracts Tribunal, also known as the JCT, produces standard forms of contract for construction, guidance notes and other standard documentation for use in the construction industry in the United Kingdom. From its establishment in 1931, JCT has expanded the number of contributing organisations. Following recommendations in the 1994 Latham Report, the current operational structure comprises seven members who approve and authorise publications. In 1998 the JCT became a limited company.

Wrongful trading is a type of civil wrong found in UK insolvency law, under Section 214 Insolvency Act 1986. It was introduced to enable contributions to be obtained for the benefit of creditors from those responsible for mismanagement of the insolvent company. Under Australian insolvency law the equivalent concept is called "insolvent trading".

In law, set-off or netting are legal techniques applied between persons or businesses with mutual rights and liabilities, replacing gross positions with net positions. It permits the rights to be used to discharge the liabilities where cross claims exist between a plaintiff and a respondent, the result being that the gross claims of mutual debt produce a single net claim. The net claim is known as a net position. In other words, a set-off is the right of a debtor to balance mutual debts with a creditor.

Construction law is a branch of law that deals with matters relating to building construction, engineering, and related fields. It is in essence an amalgam of contract law, commercial law, planning law, employment law and tort. Construction law covers a wide range of legal issues including contract, negligence, bonds and bonding, guarantees and sureties, liens and other security interests, tendering, construction claims, and related consultancy contracts. Construction law affects many participants in the construction industry, including financial institutions, surveyors, quantity surveyors, architects, builders, engineers, construction workers, and planners.

<i>Construction Law Journal</i>

Construction Law is a monthly English-language journal providing news and articles on the construction industry. The journal is written for the non-legal professional involved in contractual and other legal matters in the industry. The journal is owned by LexisNexis which is part of Reed Elsevier.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian corporate law</span>

Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).

Legal financing is the mechanism or process through which litigants can finance their litigation or other legal costs through a third party funding company.

A phoenix company is a successful commercial entity which has emerged from the collapse of another through insolvency. Unlike "bottom of the harbour" and similar schemes that strictly focus on asset stripping, the new company is set up as a legal successor, to trade in the same or similar trading activities as the former, and is able to present the appearance of "business as usual" to its customers. It has been described as "one that arises amidst or from the disarray and demise of its predecessor." A phoenix company may be classified either "innocent"/"bona fide" or abusive.

Retainage is a portion of the agreed upon contract price deliberately withheld until the work is substantially complete to assure that contractor or subcontractor will satisfy its obligations and complete a construction project. A retention is money withheld by one party in a contract to act as security against incomplete or defective works. They have their origin in the British construction industry Railway Mania of the 1840s but are now common across the industry, featuring in the majority of construction contracts. A typical retention rate is 5% of which half is released at completion and half at the end of the defects liability period. There has been criticism of the practice for leading to uncertainty on payment dates, increasing tensions between parties and putting monies at risk in cases of insolvency. There have been several proposals to replace the practice with alternative systems.

Austin Australia was a Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, based 'design and construct' building organisation, specialising in complex buildings. It was originally formed in 1961 as a wholly owned subsidiary of The Austin Company, Cleveland, Ohio, initially under the name of Austin Anderson Pty Ltd, it changed its name to Austin Australia in 1982. With headquarters in Sydney and branches in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and South-East Asia, The Austin Company retained ownership of Austin Australia until 1997, when it was acquired by private Australian ownership. However, it retained an affiliation status with The Austin Company in the USA

Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is an Indian law which creates a consolidated framework that governs insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings for companies, partnership firms, and individuals.

<i>Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales, ("Codelfa") is a widely cited Australian contract law case, which serves as authority for the modern approach to contractual construction. The case greatly influenced the development of the Eastern Suburbs railway line. In terms of contract law, the case addresses questions of frustration, construction and the parol evidence rule. The case diverged from the well established English approach regarding the use of extrinsic evidence in contractual interpretation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kell & Rigby</span> Defunct Australian construction company

Kell & Rigby was an Australian construction company.

References

  1. ↑ Bruce Collins QC, Final Report of the Independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, November 2012 https://www.finance.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/IICII-final-report.pdf, p436
  2. ↑ Australian Government, Minister for Employment's Media Centre (21 Dec 2016). "John Murray AM appointed to review security of payments laws". ministers.employment.gov.au. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  3. ↑ "Security of payment laws". www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  4. ↑ NSW Office of Fair Trading, Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999: Discussion Paper, December 2015 http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/biz_res/ftweb/pdfs/About_us/Have_your_say/Building_and_Construction_Industry_Security_of_Payment_Act_1999_Discussion_Paper.pdf
  5. ↑ Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 770
  6. ↑ NSW Caselaw, Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 770 (15 June 2016) Supreme Court New South Wales <https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/575f4f9ce4b058596cb9c344{{dead link|date=January 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}>
  7. ↑ Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport [2004] NSWCA 394
  8. ↑ Australian Senate Economic References Committee, Inquiry into Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry , December 2015, p174
  9. ↑ Australian Senate Economic References Committee, Inquiry into Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry , December 2015, p175
  10. ↑ Australian Senate Economic References Committee, Inquiry into Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry , December 2015
  11. ↑ Australian Senate Economic References Committee, Inquiry into Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry , December 2015, p140
  12. ↑ Bruce Collins QC, Final Report of the Independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, November 2012 IICII-final-report.pdf, p.77
  13. ↑ Bruce Collins QC, Final Report of the Independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, November 2012 IICII-final-report.pdf, p.72
  14. ↑ Australian Senate Economic References Committee, Inquiry into Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry , December 2015, p169
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.