You win sum, you lose sum (but it’s still a sum)

/in

Some construction contracts provide that expert determinations (or other alternative dispute processes) will be considered “final and binding” unless the claim or determination is excluded or carved-out.

In the matter of CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2021] NSWSC 537, the New South Wales Supreme Court considered an expert determination clause which precluded litigation in respect of the determination, unless it:

  1. Did not involve a sum of money; or
  2. Required one party to pay the other an amount in excess of $500,000.[i]

The decision in this case was that one party was not entitled to any further payment for the Works.  Did the determination “involve” paying a sum of money?

Facts

Transport for NSW (“Transport”) engaged CPB Contractors (“CPB”) to carry out road widening works. Transport issued CPB instructions to remove excess spoil from one location to another (“Works”).

The determination concerned CPB’s entitlement to payment for the Works. Transport contended (and paid CPB) on a “Dayworks” basis which equated to $1.4 million. CPB contended that it was entitled to be paid for the Works in accordance with a schedule of rates (“Rates”) which equated to $11.4 million.

The Honourable Robert McDougall QC (“Expert”) determined that CPB was not entitled to any further payment for the Works (“Determination”).

CPB sought to litigate its claims, seeking payment in accordance with the Rates. Transport sought a stay. Transport pointed to clause 71 of the relevant GC21 Contract, arguing that the Determination was final and binding.

CPB contended that it was free to litigate the claims for the Works for two reasons.

The first was that the Expert made no determination for the purposes of the Contract.  CPB submitted there is a “deficiency or error” in the Determination, meaning it was not “a determination in accordance with the contract”.  These errors were said to include a “plainly incorrect” answer to a question referred to determination[ii], a failure to give reasons as required by the contract[iii] and a failure to answer a question at all[iv].  The first ground was specific to the facts of the case.

The second reason was that the Determination (to the extent it was a valid determination under the contract) did not “involve paying a sum of money”.

On this issue, CPB submitted that the question is what the Determination itself is and not the “matters for determination” involve.  It was argued that a determination that no money is payable is in effect a dismissal or rejection of that claim.  CPB submitted that such a decision does not and cannot involve “paying” a sum of money.

Decision

Transport’s application for a stay was granted.  CPB was precluded from litigating on the claims.

On the first ground, Stevenson J found that the Determination did not contain a deficiency or error.  The Expert’s Determination complied with the contractual requirements.

On the second ground, Stevenson J concluded that a determination dismissing a claim for money does “involve” “paying a sum of money” in the sense that it deals with the claim that, if successful, would have resulted in the paying of a sum of money; and rejects that claim.[v] The focus is not on the amount to be paid pursuant to the determination, but on the nature of the determination – i.e. whether it “involves”, in the sense of “concern” paying a sum of money.[vi] This is distinguished from a distinct category of determinations that are not in respect of money claims, such as a dispute about the construction of the contractual terms.[vii]

Therefore, in finding that the Determination did “involve the paying of sum of money”, the exception to the preclusion of litigation did not apply.

Take home tips

Dispute resolution clauses are often overlooked by parties in a contract negotiation. This case highlights that parties should carefully consider the types of disputes or claims that may be captured by a binding alternative dispute resolution process.  Parties should draft clear carve-outs from an otherwise final and binding dispute resolution clause if they wish to have recourse to the courts.

For carve-outs involving sums, consider whether the monetary thresholds are arbitrary or considered by reference to the whole of the contract sum.  Also consider whether it is the value of the claim that is of importance, or the value of the determination.

If parties wish to preserve the right to apply to the courts concerning the interpretation of a contractual term, for example, it would be prudent for the dispute resolution clause to reserve the right for an application for declaratory relief or contain a carve-out in relation to claims or disputes not involving or concerning payment of a sum.

[i] At [26] – [27].

[ii] At [47].

[iii] At [58].

[iv] At [66].

[v] At [91].

[vi] At [92].

[vii] At [94].

NSW court provides guidance for hand delivering payment claims and payment schedules on site

/in

In MGW Engineering Pty Ltd t/a Forefront Services v CMOC Mining Pty Ltd[1], the vexed issue of valid service for documents under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (Act) has been revisited.

The case cautions against assuming a document (e.g. a payment claim or payment schedule) will be considered “served” under s 31 of the Act by handing it to any employee of the claimant or respondent under the Act (as the case may be) on the project site.

Facts

The claimant and respondent in the case were parties to four construction contracts for the claimant to provide various services at a NSW mine site.

A representative of the claimant handed four payment claims to an employee of the respondent at 5:15pm on 3 February 2021, claiming a total of over $6M in progress payments.  The transaction took place at an “Access Control Room” where the employee of the respondent (who was not the respondent’s representative under the contracts) was on duty.

It was common ground that the respondent’s representative under the contracts was not on site on 3 February 2021 and was not provided the physical payment claims until 4 February 2021.  The payment claims were also served electronically via Aconex on 4 February 2021.

The respondent served its payment schedules on 11 February 2021 (being 11 days after 3 February 2021), with a total scheduled amount of only $180,912.05.

The claimant purported to suspend works under s 15(2)(b) of the Act.  The claimant applied to court for judgment on the full claimed amount of circa $6M arguing the payment schedules were ineffective, being served one day late.  The claimant relied on ss 31(1)(a), (b) and (e) of the Act.

Decision

Stevenson J found that service did not occur on 3 February 2021.  Accordingly, His Honour rejected the claimant’s application for summary judgment and declared the claimant’s suspension of works invalid.

His Honour held that s 31(1)(a) of the Act, permitting delivery of a document ‘to the person personally’, does not mean that a document will be taken to be served by handing it to any employee of the claimant/respondent[1].  In relation to service on a corporation, some step must be taken to bring the document to the attention of a relevantly responsible person within the company[2].

Section 31(1)(b) of the Act, permitting service by ‘lodging’ ‘during normal office hours’ to the claimant/respondent’s ‘ordinary place of business’:

  • like s 31(1)(a), requires more than giving the document to any employee of the claimant/respondent[3]; and
  • requires consideration of the normal office hours of clerical staff at the particular business of the claimant/respondent concerned, not merely when the project site is operational[4]. In this case, though the mine was manned 24/7, the respondent’s normal operating hours at the mine commenced between 7 and 7:30am and concluded around 4 to 4:30pm.  Service at 5:15pm in this case was not within “normal office hours”[5].

Therefore, although the mine site was an “ordinary place of business” under the Act[6], the other criteria for service were not fulfilled on 3 February 2021.

Service had also not occurred ‘in the manner…provided under the construction contract[s]’ pursuant to s 31(1)(e) of the Act because the contracts in this case provided that documents served after 4:00pm on a day (e.g. at 5:15pm on 3 February 2021) would be taken to be served on the next business day (e.g. on 4 February 2021).

Stevenson J held that the relevant contractual provision was not void by reason of s 34 of the Act because the effect of the provision was “facultative”[7].  If service had been effected on 3 February 2021 via ‘one or other of ss 31(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d), such service would have been effective’[8] notwithstanding the clause.  The clause gave effect to s 31(1)(e) and did not modify the operation of s31(1) generally.

Take home tips

If you intend to serve a payment claim or payment schedule by hand delivery on site, you should consider the following:

  • If relying on s 31(1)(a) or (b) of the Act, is the person who you are handing the document to a relevantly responsible person within the corporation? The person the named representative in the contract or a director of the company needs to receive it.

 

  • If relying on s 31(1)(b) of the Act, what are the normal office hours on site? If clerical staff usual work from 7:00am to 4:00pm (for example), service at 4:45pm may not be effective.

 

  • If relying on s 31(1)(e) of the Act, is there a provision in the contract which deems notices given after a particular time on a day served only on the following business day? If so, you must ensure the notice is given prior to the cut off.

We can assist with your queries on validity of your usual service practices and methods to ensure compliance with the Act.

[1] At [23].

[2] At [24].

[3] At [43].

[4] At [51] to [53].

[5] At [68].

[6] At [74].

[7] At [80].

[8] At [81].