Australia: Contract is king and time bars that bite: CMA Assets Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [No 6] [2015] WASC 217

Construction Law Update - October 2015



The Western Australian Supreme Court has upheld a strict time bar even where the contractor would otherwise have been entitled to an extension of time. The case serves as a reminder that clearly drafted time bars will bite if parties do not put their notices in on time.

The case also stands for the proposition that a clearly drafted extension of time regime may exclude the operation of the prevention principle (meaning that the contractor will take the risk of accelerating where no extension of time is granted).

The facts

In 2005, BHP engaged the defendant (John Holland) to upgrade and extend a wharf at Finucane Island, Port Hedland. In part, John Holland was required to demolish and reconstruct Berth C. John Holland subcontracted the demolition of Berth C (and the associated berthing and mooring "dolphin" structures unconnected to the wharf) to the plaintiff, (CMA). The project also required John Holland to re-construct the wharf and deepen the adjacent berthing pocket.

John Holland planned the works so that CMA would move along the along the wharf demolishing and John Holland's piling and construction crews would follow behind. It was to be a relatively straight forward linear construction project.

There was one complicating factor, namely the shiploader which BHP planned to keep on the wharf. As a result, John Holland planned to move it to the far end of the wharf, demolish the bulk of the wharf and build the new sections, then move the shiploader from the old section of the wharf to the new section, demolish the remaining old wharf and build the final section of new wharf. Thus, the movement of the shiploader was a significant interim milestone in the project.

However, the biggest problem John Holland and CMA encountered was that the dolphins were more difficult to demolish than CMA had anticipated.

Originally, CMA had planned to secure a heavy lift barge, send divers to the bottom of the ocean to cut the piles at the sea bed and then lift each dolphin (and its piles) out of the water and carry out the demolition work on land. CMA was unable to secure the heavy lift barge, so an alternative method was adopted:

  1. CMA would completely demolish (by explosive means) the dolphin headstocks so that 100% demolition with "extremely good fragmentation" was achieved;
  2. in the blasting process, the fragments would fall to the floor of the ocean; and
  3. John Holland would then be responsible for removing the fragments from the ocean floor using the excavator barge it had secured to undertake the berth pocket deepening works.

Difficulties emerged. First, CMA's blasting subcontractor was not able to achieve 100% demolition with extremely good fragmentation so that what fell to the floor of the ocean was not, as planned, small fragments of dolphin headstock, but rather large blocks of concrete and reinforcing. Many blocks weighed more than 20 tonnes. The result of this was that the debris removal operation was far more complicated and expensive than either John Holland or CMA had planned.

The second difficulty was that the reinforcing in some of the berthing dolphins was different from the plans that had been provided to CMA, making the drilling required to prepare the dolphins for blasting more time consuming and expensive than planned. CMA fell into delay as against the subcontract milestones but did not submit notices of delay as that subcontract required.

Disputes arose as to who should bear the unexpected costs associated with the debris removal works and the delays. John Holland also fell into dispute with BHP. That dispute (which was wider ranging than the dispute with CMA) settled in April 2008.

In March 2008, CMA commenced proceedings against John Holland, claiming the balance owing under the subcontract and amounts for disputed variations and delay claims. John Holland denied the majority of the claims and counterclaimed to recover amounts it expended in recovering and conveying demolition debris, and for disruption of its own works.

Many of the disputes were settled in the lead up to the trial, subject to John Holland's right to set off the amounts counterclaimed. As a consequence the decision is largely focussed on the counterclaim that CMA disputed (Mostly on factual grounds but also on the basis that John Holland's had been compensated for any loss by the settlement with BHP).

The decision

CMA's claims

CMA's contested claims were:

  1. its claim for additional work to demolish berthing dolphins BD1, BD2 and BD6 (Variation 79); and
  2. a series of extension of time and consequent delay costs claims.

CMA's variation claim

The dispute about claim for additional work was largely factual and the Court found for CMA finding that the relevant drawings

"did not accurately describe the structures to be demolished, in a manner that directly affected the demolition methodology proposed by CMA and not rejected by John Holland." 77

In making that finding, Allanson J rejected John Holland's defence, which was premised on a clause in the subcontract by which John Holland expressly did not warrant the accuracy of any information provided to CMA on the basis that the drawings were incorporated into the terms of the subcontract and therefore something more than information made available to CMA.78

CMA's delay claims

CMA claimed that:

  1. it had been delayed by the variation works associated with Variation 79 (between 25 October 2006 and 13 December 2006);
  2. John Holland had delayed it by delaying the move of the shiploader (between 29 January 2007 and 10 May 2007);
  3. it was denied access to part of the site (the transfer station), causing it to be delayed (between 13 February 2007 and 10 April 2007; and
  4. it was denied access to part of the site (MD4A), causing it to be delayed (between 21 March 2007 and 2 June 2007).

The contractual framework

The terms of the subcontract regarding extensions of time and delay damages were reasonably typical for a subcontract in a project such as this. In short, CMA was required to notify John Holland (in accordance with "harsh"78 time limits) in order to be entitled to an extension of time.

The language of the relevant clause80 stated that CMA may claim for an extension of time it if "is or will be delayed".81 The Court held that that language (in the broader context of the relevant clause) required a prospective delay analysis to determine the extent of any entitlement to an extension of time.82 The subcontract further required that that prospective analysis be undertaken by reference to the approved construction programme and whether at the time the claimed delay event took place CMA was on schedule (or was being delayed by its own prior delays).83

A consequence of finding that an entitlement to an extension of time was governed by a prospective delay analysis was that the Court could adopt a relatively unsophisticated approach to the overlapping nature of the delay periods claimed by CMA. In short, the Court held that, in the context of the particular subcontract, the entitlement to any extension of time was to be determined at the moment that the delay event begins to operate, so that

"Where a subsequent delay event begins to operate concurrently, it is only taken to affect the critical path from when the event earlier in time ceases to be effective." 84

CMA's was delayed by the late movement of the shiploader

There was no dispute between the parties that the movement of the ship loader was delayed, nor that as between John Holland and CMA, that delay was John Holland's responsibility. However, John Holland claimed that the debris removal operation (which was, as a matter of contract, CMA's responsibility85) was an over-riding fact that defeated CMA's delay claim.86 The Court did not accept that argument because of:

  1. firstly, the Court's finding that the entitlement to an extension of time was to be determined prospectively at the moment the delay event commenced operating; and
  2. secondly, the fact that while the debris removal was CMA's obligation, it was not a programmed activity and as such could not be analysedwhen determining whether CMA was behind schedule by reference to the approved construction programme, as required by the relevant clause.87

Thus, the Court found that, as a matter of fact, CMA was delayed in its works by the late movement of the shiploader.

John Holland had also raised an argument that even if CMA had been delayed by the late movement of the shiploader, that made no real difference because CMA never had sufficient resources on site to undertake all of its works (relevantly, the demolition of the wharf and transfer station at the same time) had the shiploader been moved on time. The Court rejected that argument because, as a matter of prospective analysis, the entitlement to an extension of time arose due to the shiploader delay before CMA had the opportunity to conduct the two work areas concurrently.88

CMA's failure to notify

Despite finding that John Holland had delayed CMA, the Court upheld John Holland's argument that CMA's extension of time claim should nonetheless be denied on the basis of the "harsh" time bars in the subcontract. The relevant clause was clearly drafted so that compliance with the time bar (in this case 7 days) was a pre-condition to any entitlement to an extension of time. As a matter of fact, CMA did not submit a notice within the required time. Thus, John Holland denied the claim on that basis. CMA sought to argue that the time bar should not apply for a variety of reasons, including that at the time it did not know how long the delay would persist; that the time bar should only "bite" for the time before it actually notified John Holland; and that there was an estoppel by conduct such that strict adherence to the notification regime was not required.

The Court rejected all of these arguments. As to the construction of the clause, the Court stated:

"There is also no doubt that a strict application of cl 10.12 is harsh. But I am not satisfied that it is without purpose and absurd, so that an alternative construction must be given, notwithstanding the apparently clear words". 89

Thus, the Court found that John Holland was entitled to reject the extension of time claims and consequent delay costs claims.

CMA's remaining delay claims

A similar analysis applied to the delay claims arising out of the delayed access to MD4A and the additional works associated with Variation 79. In each case the Court found that as a matter of fact CMA had been delayed by a cause which would entitle it to an extension of time,90 but that a failure to notify in accordance with the clear words of the subcontract meant that John Holland was entitled to reject the claims.91

John Holland's discretion to extend time

CMA made the (common) argument that notwithstanding CMA's failure to submit notices on time John Holland ought to have exercised unilateral power to extend time and thereby "cure" the failure to notify in accordance with the clear terms of the subcontract. The Court rejected that argument. In doing so it relied on the language in the relevant clause that stated that John Holland could "in its absolute discretion and without affecting any rights or attracting obligations" extend the Date for Completion.92 The Court held that the effect of that language was that the discretion to extend time was truly unfettered and that in the face of such clear drafting there was no need to consider implied obligations to act reasonably or in good faith.

John Holland's counterclaims

John Holland's counterclaim was primarily for the costs associated with removing the blasting debris from the sea floor and transferring it to the shore. John Holland also made a claim for disruption to its piling works occasioned by the presence of debris on the sea floor, and a claim for liquidated damages.

John Holland put its counterclaim on a number of alternative bases, namely:93

  1. that there was an agreed variation to the terms of the subcontract about the mechanism by which the parties would share the costs of debris removal and transport;
  2. if there was no variation, in quantum meruit;
  3. as damages for a breach of the subcontract; and
  4. as a debt arising under the provision of the subcontract allowing John Holland to perform obligations under the subcontract that CMA had not performed.

John Holland also pressed a claim for misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to part of its loss.

CMA breached the Subcontract

The Court rejected John Holland's variation and quantum meruit claims.

As to the variation claims, the Court's rejection was based on an analysis of the correspondence which revealed that as a matter of fact no agreement on cost sharing had ever been made between the parties.94

As to the restitutionary claims, the Court held that given the contractual framework left no room for such a claim. The Court was particularly persuaded to this conclusion by the presence in the Subcontract of clause 17.5 in which the parties expressly agreed:

"the circumstances in which John Holland may perform an obligation the CMA was obliged to perform under the Subcontract, and its entitlement in debt for the costs, expenses and damages it has occurred in doing so." 95

However, the Court did find, by a construction of the scope of work, an obligation on CMA to remove debris from the sea bed, which obligation CMA had breached, causing John Holland to suffer loss and damage.96 The Court also found that John Holland was entitled to claim a debt under clause 17.5.97

Misleading or deceptive conduct

John Holland claimed that part of its loss related to damage sustained to the dredging barge, the Hippopotes, was also caused by CMA's misleading or deceptive conduct. The relevant conduct was CMA's description (at a meeting in March 2007) of the size of the debris on the sea floor in early 2007 and the capacity of the Hippopotes to remove it.98 The Court upheld this claim on the facts..99

An agreement in relation to specific vessels

John Holland claimed that part of its loss related to the hire of specific debris removal vessels (the Westsea barges) was also claimable under the terms of a separate agreement captured in a letter sent on 5 June 2007.100 The evidence was that the letter recorded the agreement following prior correspondence on the topic.101 The Court examined how the letter came into existence and the parties' conduct following the letter being exchanged and concluded that the parties' subsequent conduct was consistent with an agreement being made.102

The damages that flowed from each of the specific findings (that is, in relation to misleading or deceptive conduct, and the letter agreement in relation to the Westsea barges) were broadly coextensive with the wider finding that CMA breached the terms of the subcontract and that John Holland was entitled to claim a debt under clause 17.5.103

John Holland's disruption claim

John Holland claimed it was disrupted in the progress of its piling operation by the presence of debris on the sea floor. The Court accepted that there had been some disruption to the operation but, given it had only been provided with very general evidence of the disruption, could make no finding as to the quantification of that disruption.104

Liquidated damages and the prevention principle

Because the Court upheld John Holland's rejection of CMA's extension of time claims, it followed that John Holland was entitled to liquidated damages associated with the CMA's delay to completing the debris removal works. CMA defended this claim on the basis of the prevention principle, arguing that the delays were not caused by CMA's breaches so it would be wrong for John Holland, in effect, to profit from its own wrongs.

However, the Court, again, relied on the clear words in the Subcontract which stated that if CMA failed to comply with the notice provisions it would have:

"no entitlement to an extension of time and any principle of law or equity which might render the Date for Practical Completion unenforceable shall not apply." 105

The Court held that provision was effective at excluding the operation of the prevention principle, relying on McLure P's earlier characterisation of the prevention principle as a "particular manifestation of the obligation to cooperate implied as a matter of law in all contracts."106 Although it is not stated in the judgment, this finding may have significant impacts within the construction industry as it confirms that a clearly worded contract may exclude the operation of the prevention principle with the consequence that contractors signing up to such terms effectively run the risk of acceleration in circumstances where no extension of time is available regardless of the actual cause of the delay.107

The Head Contract claims

As a reasonably general argument against John Holland's counterclaims, CMA argued that any loss which John Holland had sustained ought to be reduced to account for the settlement John Holland had secured with BHP in so far as that settlement related to the claims in issue between John Holland and CMA. The Court did not reject this as a possible means of defending the action.108 However, on the facts, it found that CMA had not been able to prove that any amount of the settlement between BHP and John Holland was referrable to the claims between John Holland and CMA. Thus, this avenue of defence to the counterclaim failed.109 It follows from this finding that head contractors are well advised to structure settlements with principals so that there is no clear itemisation of the claims in the settlement deed, especially in circumstances where there are claims from "down the line" as well.


While the decision is lengthy (it stretches to 903 paragraphs), the most interesting aspects for construction industry participants are:

  1. the willingness of the Court to uphold a clearly drafted time bar;
  2. the commentary about the possibility of excluding the prevention principle; and
  3. the impact that the structure of the settlement with BHP had on CMA's claims against John Holland.

The clear message that emerges is that courts will give effect to a clearly worded contract even where that effect is "harsh". Put more shortly, the Contract is King! WASC/2015/217.html


77 At [240]
78 At [245]
79 At [375]
80 Relevant portions are extracted at [255]–[269]
81 At [324]
82 At [323]
83 At [333]
84 At [326]
85 At [616]
86 At [345]
87 At [346]
88 At [350]
89 At [375]
90 At [389], [411]
91 At [394], [416]
92 At [430]
93 At [452]
94 At [590]
95 At [596]
96 At [616]
97 At [624]
98 At [625]–[628]
99 At [666]
100 At [683]
101 At [693]
102 At [709]
103 At [668], [711]
104 At [850], [855]
105 At [865]
106 Spiers Earthworks Pty Ltd v Landtec Projects Corporation Pty Ltd [No 2]
(2012) 287 ALR 360 at [47], cited at [865]
107 See, eg, SMK Cabinets v Hili Modern Electrics Pty Ltd [1984] VR 391, 394–5 (Brooking J)
108 Cf Clark v Macourt (2013) 253 CLR 1
109 At [899]

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”

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.