Australia: Security Of Payment Roundup: Major Cases & Legislative Updates 2007

Last Updated: 19 December 2007

This special report summarises the important decisions and legislative changes to the Building and Security of Payment Acts across Australia.

Few areas of law are developing so rapidly, with such immediate impacts on the way industry participants run their business. Many of the decisions reported were made in the NSW courts but are directly relevant to provisions in the Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory law. South Australia is now set to join the other states in introducing a legislative regime with the South Australian Parliament currently considering the introduction of security of payment legislation. Major changes were made to the Victorian legislation, commencing in March 2007.

The relevant legislation covered in this publication is:

  • Building and Construction Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) - the NSW Act
  • Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (QLD) – the Queensland Act
  • Building and Construction Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) – the Victorian Act
  • Construction Contracts (Security of Payment) Act 2004 (NT) – the NT Act
  • Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) – the WA Act

David Fabian

Head of Division

Construction, Engineering & Infrastructure

Adjudicator’s Error In Failing To Consider A Submission Is Not A Denial Of Natural Justice - John Holland v RTA [2007] NSWCA 19

In John Holland v RTA the respondent (RTA) put to the adjudicator that he did not have power to deal with the claimant’s payment claim. The claim was for delay of damages based on a disputed extension of time claim that had been referred to expert determination. The RTA argued the NSW Act only empowers an adjudicator to value payment claims, not be the arbiter of complex extension of time claims. The difficulty for the RTA was that the argument was raised for the first time in the RTA’s adjudication response, when the legislation clearly requires all reasons for withholding payment to be raised in the payment schedule.

The adjudicator determined for John Holland and the Judge at first instance, departing from Brodyn, thought the adjudicator’s failure to consider the submission a failure to comply with a basic and essential requirement. In the Court of Appeal the RTA argued that if a point is raised that is objectively fundamental to an adjudicator’s jurisdiction, it does not matter how it’s brought to his attention, it must be considered (as required by section 22(2) of the NSW Act). The court said the basis of the submission was still a reason for withholding payment and should have been included in the payment schedule. Even if the submission was objectively fundamental it is for the adjudicator to decide whether it had any relevance to his determination.

Richard Crawford

Adjudicator’s Determination Invalid Due To Non-Compliance With An Essential Requirement Of The NSW Act - Halkat v Holmwood [2007] NSWCA 32

In Halkat v Holmwood the adjudicator acknowledged that he did not have enough information to determine the value of the payment claim and accepted the claimant’s submissions without considering the submissions made by the respondent. The adjudicator took this course of action as he believed the respondent lacked credibility. The Judge at first instance ruled this was a breach of a basic and essential requirement in failing to follow section 22(2) of the NSW Act, which requires an adjudicator to consider the legislation, the construction contract, and the parties’ submissions. The Court of Appeal, applying Brodyn, said that the adjudicator’s ‘capriciousness’ in failing to consider the parties’ submissions was not a breach of a basic and essential requirement, but an obvious example of a failure to perform his duties in good faith and therefore upheld the Judge’s decision.

Richard Crawford

Adjudicators To Determine Their Own Jurisdiction - Downer v Energy Australia [2007] NSWCA 49

In Downer v Energy Australia the court determined that the adjudicator had dealt with a different payment claim at adjudication from that which was initially served on the respondent. After reviewing an expert report served with the respondent’s payment schedule, in its adjudication submissions, the claimant broadened (and changed the location of), the latent condition on which it claimed an entitlement to delay damages. On appeal the court held that an adjudication application only has to identify the payment claim and the payment schedule. Submissions in support are not required nor have to be considered. Whether or not the adjudicator believed there had been a change in the basis upon which the claim was made, the adjudicator’s reasons showed he had considered the question, and having turned his mind to it that was enough, even if he decided wrongly. It is up to an adjudicator to determine the parameters of a payment claim not a court.

Richard Crawford

Can A Solicitor Or Agent Prepare And Sign A Payment Schedule? - Baulderstone Hornibrook P/L v QIC [2007] NSWCA 9

The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, under s.14(1) of the NSW Act, a payment schedule that had been prepared and signed by a party’s solicitors was valid. The key issue was whether the party’s agent had express or implied authority to prepare and submit the payment schedule.

The courts will readily imply that a party’s agent is authorised to prepare and deliver payment schedules on its behalf in circumstances where the agent, normally a solicitor;

  1. has been retained to provide general legal services in relation to the project; or
  2. has previously dealt with security of payment matters arising on the project.

Baulderstone Hornibrook (Baulderstone) was engaged by the Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC) to design and construct the Westpoint Shopping Centre redevelopment. On 11 April 2006, Baulderstone served a payment claim on QIC. The payment schedule was signed and delivered by its solicitors, Allens Arthur Robinson (Allens), together with a covering letter on QIC’s letterhead. Baulderstone challenged the validity of the payment schedule on the basis that Allens’ authority under its retainer with QIC, did not extend to the preparation and provision of payment schedules on behalf of QIC.

The NSW Court of Appeal held it could be inferred that the payment schedule was prepared with the knowledge of, and in accordance with, the express or implied instructions of QIC because:

  1. Allens had been engaged to provide all relevant legal services with respect to the project, which included acting to ensure the provisions of the Act were complied with; and
  2. at the very least, the prior conduct of Allens in providing payment schedules on behalf of QIC on a monthly basis for 16 months prior justified a finding of implied authority.

Mark Brasher

Act Does Not Apply To A Contract That Forms Part Of A Loan Agreement - Over Fifty Mutual Friendly Society Ltd v Smithies [2007] NSWSC 291

This case is significant because it establishes that a construction contract will not be regarded as forming part of a loan agreement, and therefore will not be excluded from the operation of the NSW Act, unless it is included in, or incorporated into, the loan agreement. Accordingly, financiers who enter into arrangements to pay contractors directly may be liable for claims under the Act if those arrangements sit outside of the loan agreement.

The plaintiffs were the financiers for a property development undertaken by Blueprint Property Developments Pty Ltd (Blueprint) and had entered into Deed of Loan with Blueprint. Under a Supplementary Deed between the plaintiffs and Blueprint, the loans were varied so that the plaintiffs were required to pay the subcontractors directly.

Two sub-contractors served security payment claims on the plaintiff, claiming payment under the Supplementary Deed, and made adjudication applications in respect of those claims. The plaintiff argued that the Supplementary Deed, upon which the claim for payment was based, was exempt from the operation of the Act by virtue of s.7(2)(a). This argument was rejected by the adjudicator.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that for the section 7(2)(a) exception to apply, it was necessary to establish that the ‘construction contract’ formed part of a loan agreement. Even if the court took a broad view of the words ‘forms part of’, on the facts, the Supplementary Deed could not be classified as forming part of a loan agreement. The arrangement did not arise from the finance instruments, but from written and oral statements and from actions taken on the part of the plaintiffs, which were subsequent to, and fell wholly outside of the loan agreement.

Mark Brasher

Use Of The Statutory Demand Process Under The Corporations Act Appropriate Where An Adjudication Decision Had Been Filed As A Judgment Debt And Left Unpaid - Peekhrst Pty Ltd v Glenzeil Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 159

The applicant developer contracted with the respondent builder to construct a residential marina complex at Runaway Bay on the Gold Coast. The Builder served a payment claim under the Queensland Act (QLD Act) and the developer served a payment schedule, disputing the builder’s entitlement to the amount claimed. The builder applied for adjudication of the matter under the QLD Act, and the adjudicator decided that the developer was required to pay a sum to the builder. In accordance with the QLD Act, the builder filed the adjudication certificate in court as a judgment for a debt, obtained judgment and subsequently served a statutory demand under section 459E of the Corporations Act in reliance on that judgment.

The developer applied to the Supreme Court seeking an order that the statutory demand be set aside on the basis that it was an abuse of process and that substantial injustice would be caused unless it was set aside.

The court refused to set aside the statutory demand on the basis that it did not constitute an abuse of process for the builder to pursue the debt with a statutory demand. The court said the purpose of the QLD Act was to ‘achieve swift and early progress payments’ and went on to say:

‘The intention of the Act is clear in seeking to "fast track" progress payments even where it is likely that the parties will continue to dispute the decision made by an adjudicator. Where the party against whom judgment has been given has not sought to set it aside nor commenced civil proceedings pursuant to its rights under s100 [of the QLD Act] … it does not seem to me to be an oppressive use of a statutory demand made in reliance upon the judgment obtained.’

Philip Woods

Service Of A Number Of Invoices In A Bundle Does Not Necessarily Constitute A Single Payment Claim - Downsouth Constructions v Jigsaw Corporate Childcare [2007] NSWSC 597

The claimant (Downsouth) submitted a bundle of tax invoices claiming payment in relation to four separate contracts it had entered into with Jigsaw. Payment schedules were provided in response to each invoice, which followed a similar format. The matter proceeded to adjudication. Only 21 of the 40 invoices were referred to adjudication. The adjudicator considered these invoices but refused to consider overpayments made in respect of some of the invoices not referred to in the adjudication because the reasons were not expressly contained in the payment schedule.

The matter went to the Supreme Court where the argument that the 40 invoices comprised one payment claim and could not be separated was rejected. The reason given was because each invoice was a separate claim so that part of a bundle could be referred to adjudication.

The court agreed with the adjudicator’s application of section 20(2B) of the NSW Act as to the cross claimed amounts. The payment schedule had not expressly stated how Jigsaw was to reduce the claimed amount and reference to a ‘cross claim’ was not enough.

Pamela Jack

Proposed Amendments To NT Security Of Payment Legislation Will Extend Time Limits - Justice Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 2007 (NT)

The Justice Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 2007 (NT) proposes to amend certain time limits under the Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act 2004 (NT). The amendments will have the following effect:

  • the 10 day time limit to issue a notice of dispute in response to a payment claim will be extended to 14 days;
  • the 20 day time limit to pay any portion of a disputed claim that is not subject to dispute will be extended 28 days; and
  • the 28 day time limit for bringing an application for adjudication will be extended to 90 days.

Cris Cureton

Consequences Of Not Paying Claimant Where There Is No Payment Schedule - Kell & Rigby v Guardian International Proprieties [2007] NSWSC 554

The respondent (Guardian) failed to provide a payment schedule to the claimant (Kell & Rigby) within the required ten business days of receiving a payment claim. Guardian provided a payment schedule, but not within the specified timeframe. Essentially all liability was denied with a cross claim for a general overpayment. Kell & Rigby made an adjudication application, even though it was not in compliance with section 17(2) of the NSW Act. Section 17(2) requires a claimant to notify the respondent of its intention to apply for adjudication within 20 business days of the due date for payment. The adjudicator declined to deal with the adjudication application, after both parties acknowledged that section 17(2) had not been complied with.

Kell & Rigby then applied to the court for summary judgment to recover the unpaid portion of the payment claim under section 17(1) on the basis that Guardian failed to provide the initial payment schedule within the prescribed time. The court held that by failing to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of the Act the adjudication application was not valid. This in effect meant that no election had been made to proceed to adjudication under section 17(2) of the Act. It was then open to Kell & Rigby to recover the outstanding amount as a debt due.

Elizabeth McKechnie

Principals Cannot Rely On The Insolvency Provisions Of The Corporation Act To Extinguish Judgment Debts - Veolia Water Systems v Kruger Engineering[No.3] [2007] NSWSC459

In this case a payment claim was issued seeking delay costs on the basis of delay in granting site access and a purported suspension of the works. The respondent issued a very short and vague payment schedule but at adjudication presented over 1800 pages of submissions in an attempt to expand its reasons. The adjudicator determined in favour of the claimant (Kruger). This was challenged by Veolia on the grounds that the adjudicator had failed to consider the submissions as required by section 22(2) of the NSW Act.

The Supreme Court found the adjudicator had sufficiently discharged his duty. The original payment schedule only had the bare details and the adjudication response could not be called upon to cure any deficiencies. The court warned of the dangers of a repetitive and unfocused payment schedule.

Julian Hill

Mere Notice By A Claimant Of An Intention To Seek Adjudication Of A Progress Payment Dispute Is Not An Election To Pursue Adjudication Under The NSW Act - Rojo Building Pty Ltd v Jillcris Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 880

The building company Rojo was contracted by Jillcris to build a beach house on Jillcris’ property. A dispute arose over a progress payment claim served by Rojo on Jillcris. The parties agreed that Jillcris had failed to provide a payment schedule within the ten business day period prescribed under s14 of the NSW Act.

Rojo gave notice to Jillcris under section 17(2) of the Act (notice) of its intention to apply for adjudication of the payment claim, unless a payment schedule was received within the following five business days. Before Jillcris received Rojo’s notice, Jillcris sent a payment schedule to Rojo in response to the original payment claim. The following day Jillcris received the notice and Rojo had advised that it did not intend to pursue an adjudication and therefore Jillcris was not required to provide a payment schedule. It was not contended that the payment schedule provided (late) in response to the original payment claim, should be treated as a response to the notice.

Rojo succeeded in obtaining summary judgment for the claimed amount on the grounds of Jillcris’ failure to provide a payment schedule within the time allowed by s14 of the Act.

The court found that no election had been made by Rojo as it had withdrawn the notice before Jillcris had responded, and before Rojo had applied for adjudication. The court concluded that it was unclear whether Rojo would have been entitled to withdraw the notice and claim the debt in court, if Jillcris had provided a payment schedule on time in response to the notice.

Nick King & Ben Aitken

Successive Payment Claims Do Not Necessarily Have To Be For New Or Additional Work, But They Cannot Be Identical. If A Payment Claim Merely Repeats An Earlier Claim It Will Not Be Valid And Therefore Cannot Be Adjudicated – Doolan v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors

Rubikcon made a ‘final claim’ for payment, which was not paid. An adjudicator was appointed and determined that the adjudication was a nullity because the adjudication application was not made within the time required by the Act. Rubikcon then resubmitted the payment claim in the same form as the earlier claim, except for changing the invoice date and including the words ‘Reissued 16 February 2006’.

When the resubmitted claim was not paid, a second adjudicator was appointed. The adjudicator accepted the payment claim as valid. Subsequently, an application was made to the court for a judgment debt to enforce the adjudicator’s certificate.

The court considered Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport, which held that successive payment claims did not necessarily have to be for additional work but distinguished this case on the basis that the second claim was identical to the first. The court held that a previous claim may be included in a later claim, but there was no authority to allow a second claim to be made that was identical to the first. The court conceded that the second claim was not capable of founding the jurisdiction of the adjudicator.

Bede Lipman & Phillip Woods

Judicial Review Of Security Of Payment Decisions No Longer Available In Queensland - Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007 (Qld)

The Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007 (Qld) (Amending Act) received royal assent on 29 August 2007 and came into force on 27 September 2007. The Amending Act reforms the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), to exclude an adjudicator’s decision from judicial review under the Building Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld). Parties are still be able to challenge an adjudicator’s decision on the basis of a common law judicial review, as in NSW.

Mark Kenney

Expert Reports Assessing Defects In Completed Construction Work Are Not Within The Meaning Of Related Goods And Services Under The NSW Act, However It Is For The Adjudicator To Determine Their Own Jurisdiction - Boutique Developments Ltd v Construction & Contract Services Pty Ltd and Anor [2007] NSWSC 1042

This case reinforces the unwillingness of the courts to intervene in adjudications under the NSW Act on jurisdictional grounds.

Boutique Developments sought to restrain Construction & Contract Services from pursuing an adjudication application on the grounds that the work in question was not ‘construction work’ or ‘related goods and services’, within the meaning of the Act.

The application related to the provision by Construction & Contract Services of expert engineering reports to Boutique Developments. The reports assessed defects in construction works (completed by others) and costs associated with rectifying those defects, in support of Boutique Developments’ claim against third party insurers.

The court held that the reports did not fall within the definition of ‘construction work’, as the services were not to ‘construct’ or ‘repair’ the works. Instead the reports concerned the quality of construction of work done by others and identified the repairs that were necessary to be made by others.

Similarly, the work was not ‘related goods and services’, which includes architectural, design, surveying or quantity surveying services in relation to construction work. Justice Gzell said that reports ‘germane to the performance of construction would fall within the definition, but not engineering expert reports on defects in construction already carried out’. His Honour expressed the view that, ‘the adjudicator would act outside the scope of his jurisdiction if he proceeds to deal with the matter’.

Despite this, his Honour dismissed the summons, holding that it was for the adjudicator to determine the question of whether or not he or she has jurisdiction to determine the application. The court was saying that its role was only in respect of enforcement of an adjudication determination, not to prevent the adjudication determination from taking place. The problem with this position is that the recipient of the adjudication application must prepare a response addressing all matters raised in the application not just the jurisdictional point.

Nick King & Ben Aitken

Proof Of Non-Receipt Of Payment Schedule Is Not Proof Of Ineffective Service – Firedam Civil Engineering v KJP Construction [2007] NSW SC 1162

This case looks at the issue of proof of non-delivery as opposed to proof of non-receipt in terms of the effective service of a payment schedule by a principal.

The respondent (Firedam) had posted a payment schedule by express post as evidenced by envelope barcodes. The claimant (KJP Construction) claimed it was never received.

The adjudicator held that the payment schedule had not been validly served because it had not come into the claimant’s possession. However, the court held that the payment schedule was validly served by the respondent proving with envelope barcodes that it had been sent.

The case also considered whether an adjudication determination is void where an error of law leads the adjudicator to disregard a party’s submissions. The adjudicator disregarded the respondent’s submissions because he erroneously assumed that they had not been served. The court referred to the natural justice ground for judicial review in Brodyn v Davenport. Since the adjudicator had erroneously excluded consideration of the plaintiff’s submissions contained in its payment schedule and adjudication response (except as to service), his determination was void due to a denial of natural justice. However, the contravention of the Act did not render an adjudicator’s determination void and a denial of natural justice where the error was made in good faith.

Simon Ralton & Adrian Poy

Victorian Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002

Amendments to Victoria’s Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (Act) took effect on 30 March 2007. The key changes were:

1. What cannot be included in a payment claim

‘Claimable variations’ can and ‘excluded amounts’ can not be included in a payment claim.

‘Claimable variations’ encompass two classes of variation.

The first class of claimable variation is a variation that is wholly agreed to by both parties. This means that the parties agree on all of the following matters:

the type and amount of work that has been completed;

  1. the fact that completion of the work constitutes a variation of the contract;
  2. the fact that the claimant is entitled to a progress payment and that this payment includes an amount in respect of the variation;
  3. the way in which this payment is to be calculated; and
  4. the date on which this payment falls due.
  5. The second class of claimable variation occurs when the parties agree that an item of work has been performed, however they are unable to agree on any of the other matters listed in paragraphs (b) – (e) above.

    For the second class, a variation will only be deemed a ‘claimable variation’ when the contract price is $5,000,000 or less, or exceeds $5,000,000, but the contract does not include a dispute resolution clause.

    Importantly, whenever the total amount of second class claimable variations claimed exceeds 10% of the contract price, then this $5,000,000 threshold is reduced to $150,000.

    Excluded amounts’ (i.e. amounts that can not be included in a payment claim) are:

    variations that are not ‘claimable variations’;

  6. any amounts relating to-

  1. latent conditions;
  2. time-related costs; or
  3. changes in regulatory requirements;

  1. damages for breach of contract or for any claim in connection with the contract; and
  2. any claim arising at law other than under the contract;

2. Adjudication

Claimants can now pursue adjudication as an easier way to obtain a court order. Previously, it was necessary to apply to a court for summary judgement. Now it is only necessary for the claimant to register an adjudication certificate at a court.

Adjudication applications can now be made when:

  1. the scheduled amount is less than the claimed amount; or
  2. the respondent has not paid any part of the scheduled amount by the due date; or
  3. the respondent has not provided a payment schedule and has not paid any part of the claimed amount by the due date.

Previously, adjudication was only available when the scheduled amount was less than the claimed amount.

3. Adjudication Review

A process of adjudication review has been introduced. This allows parties’ limited rights to have an unfavourable adjudication determination reconsidered when the adjudicated amount exceeds $100,000.

The review adjudicator has the power to either confirm the original adjudication determination or substitute a new adjudication determination.

A claimant may apply for adjudication review if, and only if, the original adjudicator wrongly identified an ‘excluded amount’ (as defined above).

A respondent may only apply for adjudication review if it correctly served a payment schedule.

In addition, review applications by the respondent are limited to where:

  1. the original adjudicated amount included an ‘excluded amount’;
  2. the payment schedule and/or adjudication response also identified this ‘excluded amount’;
  3. the respondent has paid the claimant the original adjudicated amount, except for the amount that is alleged to be the ‘excluded amount’; and
  4. the respondent has paid the amount that is alleged to be an ‘excluded amount’ into a designated trust account.

4. Liens and suspension of works

If a respondent fails to pay a progress payment on time, the claimant:

  1. is granted a statutory lien over unfixed plant and material; and
  2. may suspend the remaining works.

Leighton Moon

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Bill 2007 (SA)

The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Bill 2007 (SA) closely resembles, in its form and function, the existing Security of Payment Acts in place in Victoria, NSW and Queensland. Generally, where there are differences between the Victorian regime and the NSW and Queensland regimes, the Bill has adopted the NSW and Queensland provisions. Significantly, the Bill does not pick up the more limiting aspects of the recent amendments to the Victorian Act such as the ‘excluded amounts’ and ‘claimable variations’ regimes.

There are three aspects of the proposed South Australian regime that distinguish it from the other East Coast regimes:

  1. It provides for a longer period of 15 days for the adjudicator to arrive at a determination.
  2. Under the proposed s24, a party can make an application for review to the District Court for a declaration that a determination or purported determination is beyond the power conferred on the adjudicator by or under the proposed act.
  3. This type of provision has not been tested given that no equivalent provision exists in any of the other states’ regimes, and it was not discussed in the Second Reading Speech. It appears to provide a broad basis for the review of determinations on jurisdictional grounds, opening a new avenue for disputing determinations.

  4. Under the proposed s28, an adjudicator may award a party some or all of its costs if another party has engaged in frivolous or vexatious conduct, or has made unfounded submissions. The adjudicator is required to give written reasons; however, the discretion to award costs is broad.

Mark Brasher

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.