Australia: Building & Construction Update, September 2006

Last Updated: 25 September 2006
Article by Jon Denovan


  • Implications Of The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement Regarding Tender Processes
  • Case Note: Biseja V NSI Group [2006] NSWSC 835
  • Reform Of Building And Development Certifications. The Detail Revealed.
  • A Valuable Lesson? John Goss Project V Leighton Contractors & Anor [2006] NSWSC 798


Should building contracts and all legal agreements generally contain a company's Australian Company Number (ACN) or Australian Business Number (ABN). Such a choice may prove critical with the enforcement of, or reliance on, a contract.

What Is The Difference?

ACN's were introduced many years ago with the purpose of providing each company with a unique identification number. Today, a builder or contractor can even have its name as its ACN. A company can only have one ACN.

ABN's were introduced with the GST on 1 July 2000. ABN's are typically the ACN plus a two digit prefix.

A single company, or a building company for example, may have more than one ABN. Joe's Building Pty Ltd may in fact hold an ABN in its own right, pursuant to a GST joint venture and also in its capacity as trustee of a discretionary or unit trust.

What Is The Best Number To Use In A Building Contract Or Legal Agreement Generally?

The use of an ABN could unintentionally reduce or limit the operation of a contract.

For example, Joe's Building Pty Ltd may have an ABN for itself and also an ABN for the discretionary trust under which its main business is conducted. If Joe's Building Pty Ltd enters into a building contract using the ABN for the company, arguments could arise as to whether the other party will have recourse to the trust assets. This would still be so despite a general clause in the contract citing that Joe's Building Pty Ltd enters into the contract in its own right and as trustee of a trust. This argument could arise as the specific use of an ABN may override general catch-all provisions within a contract.

An even more difficult situation could arise if the discretionary trust's ABN was used. Discretionary trusts do not comprise a separate legal entity and so arguments could arise as to whether the trustee is a party to the transaction at all.

Therefore it is important to use an ACN rather than an ABN when preparing a contract. An ABN is only appropriate on tax invoices.
by Rob St.Clair

Implications Of The Australia-US Free Trade Agreement Regarding Tender Processes


The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (USFTA) commenced on 1 January 2005 and is binding on both Federal and State Governments. The agreement specifies new standards for government procurement and tender processes. The NSW Government, and its relevant departments, are all named within the agreement. In short, the agreement aims to ensure that government procurement is conducted with transparency and certainty, such that there are now obligations on government departments to rigidly adhere to tender evaluation procedures that have been advertised to prospective tenderers.

Tender Processes In Australia

Traditionally, government tender processes in Australia have been conducted in a somewhat ‘loose’ manner such that the government department would retain maximum discretion in selecting a successful tenderer. This was particularly the case in NSW where no legislation regulated their conduct. The landmark decision of Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Airservices Australia (1997) held that a contract could arise in the tender process such that failure to conduct a tender in accordance with a pre-advertised tender criterion could result in contractual breaches. Furthermore, each tender process contract would include an implied term of 'good faith' and 'fairness'. In reaction to this decision, Government has subsequently tried to ensure that tender documents and processes do not give rise to a ‘tender process contract’. Many invitations to tender include clauses that either specifically exclude the possibility of a contract arising, or state that Government is ‘under no obligation to accept the lowest tender, or any tender’.

Following the Hughes case, the concept of a ‘tender process contract’ has been widely-accepted in foreign jurisdictions as well as approved judicially within Commonwealth and State jurisdictions.

Recent Case Law

The Hughes decision paved the way for disgruntled tenderers to challenge a tender process. Since then, there have been several attempts in Australia and New Zealand which have argued for the existence of a tender process contract. Each of the leading cases either failed to incorporate sufficient terms to establish a breach or were unable to establish a breach of 'good faith' or 'fairness' (see for example Pratt Contractors Ltd v Transit New Zealand, Cubic Transportation Systems Inc v New South Wales, and Dockpride Pty Ltd v Subiaco Redevelopment Authority). Another issue raised in the Pratt Contractors case was the possibility of incorporating the terms of the government department’s procurement code of conduct. In that case however, the relevant codes were not expressly incorporated. This could be a potentially successful argument in the future given that such codes of conduct may contain mandatory language unlike the tender documents themselves. ‘’;KK

US Free Trade Agreement

Chapter 15 of the USFTA concerns ‘Government Procurement’. Surprisingly, the USFTA is also binding on state governments named as specific parties. This extends to obligations being placed on every Australian state and many US states, with implications for each state governments' departments. Relevantly, 15.2 prescribes for the removal of any barriers which give rise to national discrimination; 15.6 prescribes that tendering criteria must be clearly advertised; 15.4 prescribes that government procurements should be widely advertised; and most importantly, 15.9 prescribes that:

‘Unless a procuring entity determines that it is not in the public interest to award a contract, it shall award a contract to the supplier that the entity has determined satisfies the conditions for participation and is fully capable of undertaking the contract and whose tender is determined to be the lowest price, the best value, or the most advantageous, in accordance with the essential requirements and evaluation criteria specified in the notice and tender documentation.’

Finally, 15.11 prescribes that parties to the USFTA must implement a independent review system for tender processes.

The effect of these clauses, according to a NSW Treasury Circular dated 22 December 2004, is that existing government department procurement practices will have to be amended. Traditional ‘loose’ tendering processes will have to be discontinued. Further, the USFTA provides that bidders must be told clearly what selection criteria will be used and mandates a tender challenge procedure so that excluding a pre-award contract will be pointless. So far, only the Commonwealth appears to have amended its tendering processes in line with Chapter 15. A key reason for this is the Commonwealth's actual legislative implementation of the USFTA. In contrast to this, NSW has no legislative scheme governing tendering processes and generally has the loosest of all Australian Government tendering arrangements.

The extent of NSW's implementation is minimalist and the Treasury Circular is merely referred to in the NSW Tendering Guidelines [3]. The Guidelines are to be read together with the NSW Code of Practice Code of Practice [4] as a framework for government procurement which is expressly incorporated into tender processes. However, it would be difficult to argue that the USFTA chapter is actually incorporated into tender documents and that the majority of the language within the Guidelines is vague and aspirational rather than specific and mandatory. At this stage, it is doubtful that the USFTA is incorporated into domestic NSW law or tendering practice.

The Future

It is clear that for NSW Government to be in compliance with its obligations under the USFTA, it will have to implement tendering processes that are accountable, certain and can be challenged effectively. Without change, the NSW Government may leave itself open to legal challenge as disgruntled domestic and international tenderers seek to rely on lack of adherence to the USFTA. Continued ‘loose’ tender practices may be open to challenge on the grounds that their exclusion provisions are contrary to public policy. The USFTA bolsters the legislative currency of Hughes as governments will no longer be able to shy away from the implications of the decision.
by Michael Jools

Case Note: Biseja V NSI Group [2006] NSWSC 835


This dispute relates to a project known as the 'North Entrance Stage 2 Project' between a developer, Biseja (plaintiff), and a builder, NSI (defendant). The plaintiff and defendant had a relationship spanning four years where they carried out a number of property development projects. Arrangement of payments had often been that the project management service fees were 10% of the cost of the building works and satisfied by the transfer of units in the completed development.

The Dispute

The parties fell into dispute and the defendant made a payment claim for payment of the management fee. The project management services were alleged to be "related goods and services" for the purposes of the Building And Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (the Act) and at no stage was this a contested issue in the adjudication.

The plaintiff did not provide a payment schedule nor an adjudication response to the defendant's subsequent adjudication application. The Adjudicator found that the defendant was entitled to be paid $1,774,494.00 compared to its claim of $2,268,095.08.

The plaintiff's case was that the Act did not apply to the parties agreement. The plaintiff relied on s7(2)(c) which provides that the Act does not apply to a construction contract under which it is agreed that the consideration payable for related goods and services supplied under the contract is to be calculated otherwise than by reference to the value of the related goods and services supplied. Therefore, the plaintiff argued that the determination was defective in a fundamental respect and void, having regard to the decision in Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport.

Justice Mcdougall's Decision

The defendant submitted that the agreement was confirmed and re-confirmed on separate occasions and was to the effect that three units were to be provided to the approximate value of $1,471,600 which was to represent their management fee.

Justice McDougall agreed with the Adjudicator and found that the project management fee (i.e. the consideration for the related goods and services) was to be quantified at 10% of the construction cost. The fee was not anything other than the 10%; the three units served to constitute its acquittal for the discharge of the obligation, not its quantification. Justice McDougall therefore found that the Adjudicator was correct in concluding that the agreement for provision of project management services was not caught by s7(2)(c) of the Act.
by Robert St Clair

Reform Of Building And Development Certifications. The Detail Revealed.

The Building Professionals Act (the Act) will regulate the accreditation, certification, discipline and other aspects of the operation of accredited certifiers in NSW, under one roof.

The Act was passed by the NSW Upper House in November 2005. The operation of its provisions is commencing progressively, albeit gradually, with the bulk of the reforms still to commence. Progress is being made towards its full commencement through the release of the exposure draft of the Building Professionals Regulation 2006 (the Regulation).

The exposure draft also sets out the specific requirements for accredited certifiers:

  • accreditation (categories and capabilities)
  • record keeping
  • professional indemnity insurance
  • matters and circumstances deemed to be a conflict of interest.

Accreditation Of Certifiers

The draft Regulation provides for a vast increase in the number of categories of accreditation. It proposes 32 categories divided into six groups. A certifier may be accredited in more than one category, provided the applicable prescribed qualifications are held and core competencies achieved.

The groups are:

  • construction certificates (4 categories)
  • compliance certificate (19 categories)
  • occupation certificates (3 categories)
  • subdivision certificate (1 category)
  • strata certificate (1 category)
  • complying development certificates (4 categories).

Accreditation Scheme

In support of the categories of accreditation, the Building Professionals Board (BPB) has issued a draft accreditation scheme. The scheme sets out the criteria that the BPB will use to determine if an applicant has the qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience required to be accredited to any given level. The scheme will require a specialty qualification (or equivalent) for the category of accreditation in which the person seeks to be accredited. For accreditation in any category, applicants will also need to satisfy the "core criteria" relating to good business and communication practices and knowledge of the compliance requirements of the Environmental Protection & Assessment Act and its regulations, Australian Standards, the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant regulations.

The scheme then proceeds to set out the specific knowledge, skill and experience requirements that will be required for each particular category of accreditation.


The regulations proposed are based on existing insurance requirements for accredited certifiers set out in the Environmental Protection & Assessment Regulation. Accredited certifiers who operate as individuals will be required to maintain $1m of professional indemnity insurance cover for any one claim with an overall limit of $2m. Company and partnership requirements are determined by multiplying this requirement by the number of their accredited certifiers. There is an overall cap of $20m for all claims in any given year.

Record Keeping

It is proposed that Accredited Certifiers be highly-regulated in the type of records they are to maintain and the period for which such records are to be kept.

Records include:

  • applications for certificates
  • determinations
  • documents, plans and specifications relied upon for the purpose of issuing certificates
  • a list of projects in connection with which the certifier has issued Part 4A certificates setting out detailed particulars of each project
  • records of each critical stage or compulsory inspection
  • missed inspections.

These records are to be maintained for at least ten years. The regulations in relation to record keeping pose a significant administrative burden and will have cost implications for certifiers which will be reflected in the fees they charge.

Conflicts Of Interest

The Act sets out the circumstances in which issuing Part 4A or complying development certificates comprises a "conflict of interest". The proposed regulation makes it clear that where an accredited certifier has provided an advice on how to amend plans and specifications so as to comply with applicable law, the certifier is taken to be involved in the design of an aspect of the development and not entitled to certify it him/herself. This is also the case if the certifier proposed design options for a any aspect of development, including alternative solutions for compliance with the BCA.

No conflict will arise out of the accredited certifier issuing certificates in respect of a project where he or she has:

  • provided advice on where the plans or specification for that aspect comply with legislative requirements (including the BCA)
  • provided advice on whether the building or subdivision work complies with plans and specifications that aspect with the requirements of the BCA
  • identified matters to be satisfied before a construction certificate can be issued
  • indicated an alternative solution to satisfy the BCA
  • identified requirements of the BCA applying to the aspect, without giving advice about potential alternative solutions.

Changes, in the nature of "fine tuning", to the accreditation criteria and the conflict of interest provisions are likely to occur before the draft regulation commences, but, significant changes to other areas seem unlikely. The commencement of the regulation, in a form very close to its draft, looks to be primed for a 30 September 2006 start, putting in place the final and most significant part of the new regime for regulation of building certifiers in NSW.
by Robert Riddell

A Valuable Lesson?

John Goss Project V Leighton Contractors & Anor [2006] NSWSC 798

The principal issue in this case was whether an adjudicator had "valued" construction work such that section 22(4) of the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (1999) (the Act) bound a subsequent adjudicator to give the same work the same value.


Leighton Contractors (Leighton) entered into a subcontract with John Goss Projects (JG) to carry out construction work on the "Hilton Hotel project". In March 2006, JG made a payment claim for $3.2 million (inclusive of GST), made up of four component claims for construction work (March claim). Leighton responded with a payment schedule only admitting liability to the first component claim. The dispute in respect of the remaining three component claims (which were largely claims for delay and disruption costs) was referred for adjudication. The adjudicator of the March claim reasoned that there was a complete bar to JG's claims as they had not complied with clause 45 of the contract. Clause 45 operated to exclude JG's claims where JG had not provided written notice of its intention to make a claim within 10 business days of the date they became, or should reasonably have been, aware of the circumstances founding the claim.

JG made another payment claim in May 2006 (May claim) which replicated the disputed components of its March claim. Leighton's payment schedule disputed the progress claim primarily on the basis that:

  • the adjudicator of the March claim had determined the value of the construction work as being 'nil'; and
  • the adjudicator was bound, pursuant to section 22(4) of the Act, to give the works the same 'nil' value.

In its submissions, JG asserted that the adjudicator of the March claim had decided that JG had no entitlement to its claim, rather than determining the value of the works as 'nil' and, as such, section 22(4) of the Act did not apply. JG cited the Supreme Court's decision in Rothnere v Quasar [2004] NSWSC 1151(Rothnere) in which MacDougall J had discussed the word "value" in the context of section 22(4) of the Act. His Honour drew a distinction between an adjudicator valuing construction work and determining whether a claimant was entitled to be paid for the work, commenting:

"A determination under the Act may involve both questions of quantification - the section 10 issue - and questions of entitlement; or it may involve one or the other."

As Rothnere was decided on other grounds, His Honour's comments were not binding law.

In response, Leighton submitted that the facts in Rothnere were different from the facts before the adjudicator and that the case could be ignored. Leighton did not however submit that the distinction drawn in Rothnere was wrong at law.


The adjudicator decided that the distinction in Rothnere was "incorrect", that the earlier adjudicator had valued JG's claims as 'nil' and that s22(4) applied and bound him to value the May claim as 'nil'. The adjudicator decided that the word "value", in the context of sections 10 and 22(4) of the Act, "can only mean the consideration payable for construction work. If there is no consideration payable then the construction work has no value".

Supreme Court Challenge

JG challenged this determination in the Supreme Court, claiming that they had been denied natural justice and that the adjudicator had failed to exercise his powers under the Act in good faith. JG also separately sought a declaration that clause 45 of the contract was void by operation of section 34 of the Act. His Honour McDougall J heard the matter and found that the determination was void on the basis that the adjudicator had denied the parties natural justice. His Honour's reasoning was that:

  • the question of whether the adjudicator of the March claim had "valued" the work was a material issue for the adjudicator;
  • the adjudicator's decision that the distinction in Rothnere was incorrect was material to his determination; and
  • the adjudicator was obliged to give the parties an opportunity to make submissions as to whether the distinction in Rothnere was correct and had not done so.

McDougall J took the opportunity to bolster the distinction he drew in Rothnere, commenting:

"sections 9 and 10 make it clear that there is a distinction between the calculation of the amount of a progress payment (which is ultimately what the adjudicator is required to do) and the valuation of construction work. That is the distinction that I sought to point out (on reflection, in a way that was perhaps unduly brief and somewhat delphic) in para [43] of my decision in Rothnere."

JG having succeeded on its primary ground. It was unnecessary to consider whether the adjudicator had failed to exercise his powers under the Act in good faith however McDougall J made cautionary comments in relation to the Court overturning determinations for want of good faith.

"I think that courts should be slow to decide applications on the basis of a lack of "Brodyn" good faith unless it necessary to do so. In many cases it will be possible to decide an application on the basis of denial of natural justice; and if this is so, then that should be sufficient."

McDougall decided not to make a declaration that clause 45 of the contract was void by operation of s34 of the Act. His Honour's reasoning was that this notice requirement only operated to limit the work JG might include in a payment claim and did not impair JG's right under the Act to bring a payment claim within the 12-month period after ceasing work under the contract.


  • Adjudicators should, before making a determination based on a decision that obiter of the Supreme Court is incorrect, allow the parties to make submissions on the correctness of the Court's view.
  • Although the case does not decide the point, it appears that the Court will be unwilling to part easily with the distinction in Rothnere.
  • The Courts remain reluctant to find want of good faith in an adjudicators' decision.
  • A contract requirement to provide notice of an intention to make a claim at short notice does not amount to "contracting out of the Act".

  • by Daniel Fitzpatrick



Rob Riddell

t (02) 9931 4940

Scott Laycock

t (02) 9931 4865



Andrew Denehy

t (03) 9612 8217

Lionel Appelboom

t (03) 9612 8269

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.