Tag Archive for: NSW supreme Court

Substantive control – the broad scope of the DBP Act statutory duty

/in

The scope of the statutory duty of care created by Part 4 of the Design and Building Practitioner’s Act 2020 (NSW) (DBP Act) is clarified in the NSW Supreme Court decision of The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd.[1] Section 37(1) of the DBP Act provides that a person who carries out construction work has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid economic loss caused by defects—

  • in or related to a building for which the work is done, and
  • arising from the construction work.[2]

In this decision, Justice Stevenson elaborates on the definitions of “construction work” and “a person who carries out construction work” under the DBP Act.

Facts

This case involves a claim brought by the Owners Corporation of a North Sydney strata development. The Owners Corporation claimed in respect of alleged breaches of the statutory duty by both the builder, Pafburn Pty Limited (Pafburn), and developer, Madarina Pty Limited (Madarina), of the strata development.[3] Relevantly, the builder and developer were related entities:

  • Mr and Mrs Obeid are the directors and shareholders of Pafburn; and
  • Mr Obeid is the director of Madarina, and Pafburn is the sole shareholder of Madarina.[4]

Interpretation of “construction work”

The Owners Corporation argued that Madarina owed the duty of care under section 37(1) of the DBP Act, notwithstanding that it had not done physical building work at the strata development. To resolve this issue, Justice Stevenson turned to the definition of “construction work” under section 36(1). This section provides that “construction work” means any of the following—

  • building work,
  • the preparation of regulated designs and other designs for building work,
  • the manufacture or supply of a building product used for building work,
  • supervising, coordinating, project managing or otherwise having substantive control over the carrying out of any work referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).[5]

Justice Stevenson’s analysis focused on section 36(1)(d) of this definition, noting that there are two possible interpretations of “substantive control”. Either:

  • the person must have actually exercised substantive control; or
  • it is sufficient to show that the person had the ability to exercise substantive control, regardless of whether such control was in fact exercised.

Justice Stevenson preferred the latter interpretation of section 36(1)(d); a person will be held to have carried out “construction work” where they were in a position to exercise substantive control, even if they did not in fact exercise that control.[6]

A person will be considered to have the ability to exercise substantive control over building work where they were able to control how the building work was carried out. This is a question of fact which will turn on the circumstances of each case. For example, Justice Stevenson suggested that a developer may have substantive control over building work where it owned all the shares in a builder and the two entities had common directors.[7]

In the present case, the question of whether Madarina had substantive control over the building works (and therefore whether it might owe a duty of care to the Owners Corporation) was left by Justice Stevenson for further consideration in a subsequent hearing.

Interpretation of “person who carries out construction work”

Next, Justice Stevenson considered whether an owner who carries out construction work on its own land may owe the duty of care. Madarina argued that the reference to “a person” in section 37(1) should be interpreted as excluding a person who was the owner of the land at the time at which the construction work was carried out. Madarina said that this interpretation would avoid the nonsensical result that the owner of the land might owe a duty of care to itself.[8]

Justice Stevenson did not accept this argument. Instead, his Honour avoided the nonsensical result by interpreting section 37(2) to mean that the duty is owed to each owner except an owner that has itself carried out the construction work.[9] This interpretation does not affect section 37(1), meaning that an owner who carries out construction work on its land will still owe a duty of care to subsequent owners of the land.

Does the duty extend to developers?

Finally, Justice Stevenson acknowledged that the Second Reading Speech for the Design and Building Practitioners Bill 2019 (NSW) suggested that the duty “does not extend to owners who are developers or large commercial entities”.[10] This suggestion is underpinned by the idea that these entities are sufficiently sophisticated to protect their commercial/financial interests through contract or otherwise. Despite this comment in the Second Reading Speech, there is nothing in the text of the DBP Act which excludes developers or large commercial entities from the scope of the duty of care. Justice Stevenson therefore concluded that the duty of care in section 37(1) extends equally to these entities.[11]

Key takeaways

The decision in The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd emphasises the broad application of the DBP Act duty of care. The decision is particularly relevant to parties with shared directors or similar corporate structures to builders who undertake ‘construction works’ for the purposes of the DBP Act. These parties may be held to owe a duty of care, even where they themselves have not carried out any physical building work.

Bradbury Legal is experienced in advising on parties’ potential liability under the DBP Act, including where the parties have not carried out any physical building work. For specialist and tailored advice, please contact a member of our team by phone on (02) 9030 7400 or by email at info@bradburylegal.com.au.

 

[1] [2022] NSWSC 659.

[2] Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) s 37(1).

[3] The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 659, [6]–[10].

[4] The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 659, [4].

[5] Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) s 36(1).

[6] The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 659, [25]–[26].

[7] The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 659, [26].

[8] The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 659, [43]–[46].

[9] The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 659, [52]–[57].

[10] New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 19 November 2019, 1781 (The Hon. Damien Tudehope) <https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/’HANSARD-1820781676-81076′>

[11] The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 v Pafburn Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 659, [49]–[50].

Remember your umbrella! Drafting umbrella contracts for a rainy day.

/in

This article focuses on risks for construction contractors and suppliers when agreeing to standing, purchase order or umbrella contracts and provides some tips on how to avoid or mitigate those risks.

“Standing”, “purchase order” or “umbrella” contracts are frequently used where:

  • the client engages, or intends to engage, a contractor or supplier across in multiple projects; or
  • where the quantity of works, goods or services or time when those works, goods or services are required is unclear or subject to change.

Umbrella contracts aim to settle a set of standard terms and conditions with which both parties are comfortable, with the variables such as quantities and time for performance set out in the purchase order later.

Purchase order contains additional adverse terms or terms that conflict with the umbrella contract

A risk in using umbrella contracts is that the client issues a purchase order which includes or appends an additional set of terms and conditions which are not agreeable to the contractor and/or conflict with the umbrella contract.  If the contractor commences performances in accordance with that purchase order or otherwise does not raise objection within a reasonable time:

  • a “battle of the forms” may occur, where which terms and conditions prevail becomes debatable; and/or
  • the client’s purchase order terms may be considered accepted due to the contractor’s performance of the works or services the subject of the purchase order[1].

Some ways that the risk can be avoided or mitigated include:

  1. Prevent inconsistency: Ensure that the umbrella contract contains a term which states that it will apply to the extent of any inconsistency with the purchase order.
  2. Settle form: Ensure that the umbrella contract contains a term which requires any purchase order issued to be in the form appended to the contract as an annexure (and ensuring that the purchase order issued aligns to that form).
  3. Minimise variables: Minimise the amount of variable information that will be subject to the purchase order. The parties should agree as many terms as possible via the umbrella agreement and leaving the purchase order less work to do.
  4. Contractor’s acceptance: Include a term in the umbrella contract that the purchase order will not become operative (i.e. an agreement on its terms reached) unless the contractor accepts the purchase order in writing. Then, do not accept the purchase order in writing unless the variable terms included in it (such as the time for delivery of goods) are achievable.
  5. Limits on liability: Ensure the umbrella agreement contains all necessary limits on liability – e.g. a cap on liquidated damages.

Creation of multiple contracts

It is not uncommon for an umbrella contract to contain a term to the effect that a separate contract is created upon issue (or acceptance) of each purchase order.  This is generally desirable when the umbrella contract is intended to operate as a standing agreed set of terms governing the parties’ relationship across multiple projects.

However, where such a term is included and multiple purchase orders are issued on the one project, such a term can:

  • create general difficulties in administering the contracts and enforcing rights under those contracts; and
  • impact the operation of security of payment legislation.

On the first issue, the parties would need to issue contractual notices with reference to various purchase orders.  For example, in the event of a delay event occurring which impacts multiple purchase orders a notice would need to be issued to the client with reference each separate purchase order, satisfying all relevant criteria under the umbrella agreement for such a notice.  By way of another example, a dispute between the parties may arise due to non-payment of various purchase orders or defects in goods or services supplied under various purchase orders that may need to be individually pursued using the relevant contractual dispute mechanism.

On the second issue, the security of payment legislation in NSW (and other States and Territories) does not permit a payment claim being served (and adjudication application being made) across multiple contracts.

If there is a clause in the umbrella contract stating that each purchase order will give rise to a new contract, the contractor must submit separate payment claims in relation to each purchase order and pursue separate adjudications on each payment claim.

This was highlighted in a case where Holcim pursued an adjudication application against Acciona for work on the Sydney Light Rail project where some 12,500 purchase orders had been issued.  The New South Wales Supreme Court determined that Holcim’s payment claim which encompassed several purchase orders was not a valid payment claim[2] and Holcim lost out on the benefit of an adjudication determination worth nearly $3M.  In this type of case, the issuing of purchase orders which created separate contracts resulted in commercial and administrative unworkability and prejudiced the subcontractor’s ability to pursue a large adjudication against the head contractor.

Whether or not the umbrella contract should contain a clause which provides that each purchase order issued will give rise to a new contract should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

[1] Both of these risks are discussed in our previous article on Samios Plumbing Pty Ltd v John R Keith (QLD) Pty Ltd [2019] QDC 237.

[2] Acciona v Holcim [2020] NSWSC 1330 at [40].