Tag Archive for: NSW construction

Fitz Jersey under fire: Building Commissioner issues Prohibition Order under new powers

/in

Whilst the Residential Apartment Building (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) (RAB Act) was only enacted 6 months ago, the Building Commissioner has shown his commitment to exercising the new powers conferred on his Department to regulate non-compliant developers and protect the interests of buyers in new residential developments.

The RAB Act commenced on 1 September 2020 and introduced a range of measures to regulate the carrying out of residential building work by developers, including:

  1. a new occupation certificate notification scheme; and
  2. the conferral of broad investigatory and enforcement power on the Building Commissioner.

(For more information on the RAB Act generally, please see our article from last year.)

As part of the Building Commissioner’s enforcement powers, on 21 December 2020, a Prohibition Order was issued to property developer, Fitz Jersey Pty Ltd (Fitz Jersey), preventing the issue of an occupation certificate and the registration of a strata plan in relation to its development at 563 Gardeners Road, Mascot NSW 2020.

Pursuant to section 9(1)(c) of the RAB Act, the Building Commissioner can make an order prohibiting the issue of an occupation certificate and/or the registration of a strata plan for a strata scheme in relation to a residential apartment building, if it is satisfied that a serious defect exists in the building. On two separate occasions last year, compliance officers from the Department of Customer Services conducted inspections of the building at Gardeners Road. During these inspections it was observed that building work carried out in relation to the fire safety systems was non-compliant with the performance requirements in the Building Code of Australia, which could result in serious defects.

The issue of a Prohibition Order has serious implications on a developer. Not only does it reflect poorly on their reputation in the industry (a register of Prohibition Orders issued is published publicly on the Fair Trading website), but it also has serious financial consequences as a developer cannot settle on contracts for sale and purchasers cannot lawfully occupy a building without an occupation certificate.

In November 2020, the Building Commissioner issued a Building Work Rectification Order pursuant to section 33 of the RAB Act also in relation to the building’s inadequate and non-compliant fire safety systems.

Residential developers should take heed of this as an example of the Building Commissioner’s willingness to exercise the new powers conferred by the RAB Act.

If you have questions about how the RAB Act may affect your project or would like further information on any of the above, please contact us at info@bradburylegal.com.au or (02) 9248 3450.

Suspension of relief: take out notices, jurisdictional error and Security of Payment Act

/in

In Parrwood Pty Ltd v Trinity Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd, the Court confirmed that, for the purposes of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOPA), taking the work out of the hands of a contractor will not remove reference dates accrued before the take out notice is served, even if they are not actually used until after the take out notice is issued.

Although the facts were unusual and complicated, in the unique world of the SOPA they are not unheard of. This note is useful for parties considering whether:

  1. to issue a take out notice instead of a termination notice (particularly for NSW construction contracts entered into before 21 October 2019); or
  2. to withdraw an adjudication application in the event of jurisdictional error by an adjudicator on the first determination, to re-lodge before a new adjudicator.

The facts

The contractor was working under the principal in a residential building project. The contractor accrued reference dates on the 25th day of each month. The contract contained an AS standard clause where the contractor fails to show reasonable cause for its default:

“the Principal may by written notice to the Contractor:

(a) take out of the Contractor’s hands the whole or part of the work remaining to be completed and suspend payment until it becomes due and payable pursuant to subclause 39.6; or

(b) terminate the Contract.”

The parties fell into dispute and the principal asked the contractor to show cause.

Then:

  • on 25 August 2019, the monthly reference date for a SOPA claim came about;
  • on 3 September 2019, the principal issued a notice that took out of the contractor’s hands all of the work remaining to be completed, instead of terminating the contract; and
  • on 6 September 2019, the contractor issued a payment claim in the amount of $2,023,645.76. This payment claim was said to use the 25 August 2019 reference date.

In response, the principal scheduled “$Nil”.

The contractor applied for adjudication under the SOPA. The adjudicator declined to determine an amount that the contractor was owed (if any), finding the payment claim was invalid.

After it received the first adjudicator’s decision, the contractor “withdrew” its application, and made a second adjudication application. The contractor argued that the first adjudicator had failed to exercise his statutory function in declining to determine the amount owing. The second adjudicator considered the application and awarded over $400,000 to the contractor. The principal applied to the Supreme Court to set aside the second adjudication determination.

There were two broad issues that the Court was required to consider.

Suspension and payment claims

The first issue was what effect the take out notice had on the ability to issue payment claims.

The Court found that even though the payment claim was served after a take out notice, it was saved by the fact that it was served for a reference date occurring before the take out notice was made.

The outcome would have been different if the take out notice was served before the reference date. In this case, the contractor’s rights are suspended by the take out notice, and it cannot make a payment claim under the fast-track SOPA. It can, however, still make a claim under general law.

A take out notice cannot extinguish a right to make a payment claim that already exists.

Second Adjudication

Jurisdictional error

The second issue concerned the unusual circumstances in which a claimant may effectively redo its application.

The Court found that the first adjudicator had not made a ruling that, for example, the contractor was entitled to “$Nil”. Rather, the adjudicator had decided that, no matter what he thought about the facts, he could not determine any adjudicated amount (“I must decline therefore from determining …”).

The first adjudicator had failed to determine the amount of the progress payment (if any) to be paid, as required under section 22(1) of the SOPA. Therefore, the first purported determination was void.

Making a second application

Section 26(3) of the SOPA allows for a claimant to withdraw an application and make a new adjudication application, if the adjudicator accepts the application but then “fails to determine the application within the time allowed”. The claimant must withdraw and make the new application within five business days after it is entitled to withdraw the previous adjudication application.

This may occur where the adjudicator has made a jurisdictional error in failing to determine the application.

If the original decision is decided by a court to be valid (because there was no jurisdictional error), then the second application is wasted. However, if the original decision is declared void, then the second application may still be valid.

Conclusion

It pays to be aware of when reference dates arise, and when take out notices can and should be served. Principals concerned to issue effective take out notices should be mindful of existing reference dates which have or may accrue before that notice.

Claimants should be keenly aware of the existence of any jurisdictional error on the part of adjudicators. Such error may allow them to re-lodge an adjudication application.