Australia: Corrs High Vis: Episode 8 – Corrs Construction Law Update

This week Corrs High Vis considers some of the key cases and industry updates from our latest Construction Law Update. Corrs Construction Partners Andrew McCormack and Matthew Muir and Consultant Wayne Jocic consider the landscape with Senior Associate Jaclyn Smith.

The podcast series, brought to you by the Corrs Construction team, offers analysis and insights to help you make smarter decisions.

These podcasts do not provide legal or other advice. Obtain legal or other professional advice as required.


Jaclyn Smith: Senior Associate – Construction

Matthew Muir: Partner – Construction, Brisbane

Andrew McCormack: Partner – Construction, Brisbane

Wayne Jocic: Consultant – Construction, Melbourne

JACLYN: Hello and welcome to High Vis, the Corrs Chambers Westgarth Construction podcast. My name is Jaclyn Smith and I am a senior associate in the Construction team. The Corrs Construction team recently released its quarterly construction law update. We review cases, recent developments with legislation and other industry updates that might be of interest to construction professionals. Today I'm joined by three of my Corrs colleagues to talk about the most recent update. I'm joined by Matthew Muir and Andrew McCormack who are partners in our Brisbane team, and Wayne Jocic, a consultant in our Melbourne team. So welcome to Matthew, Andrew and Wayne. Andrew, perhaps we'll start with you. Could you walk us through the recent decision of the High Court in Southern Han which listeners might know as the first decision of the High Court considering security of payment legislation, and in this case it was the New South Wales legislation.

MATTHEW: Thanks, Jackie. I think it's important to recognise that this is the first time the High Court has considered security for payment legislation. So the Southern Han decision is quite exciting for construction lawyers and people who work in the construction industry. The case concerned a payment claim under a construction agreement for about $3.2 million. A payment schedule was served in response and an adjudicator ultimately determined that an amount of around $1.2 million was payable. The principal, Southern Han, sought to set aside the adjudicator's determination on the basis of a jurisdictional error. The issue before the High Court was whether the existence of a reference date under the relevant construction contract is a precondition to the making of a valid payment claim under the New South Wales security of payment legislation. Overturning the New South Wales Supreme Court's decision on the issue, the High Court found that the existence of a reference date was a precondition to the making of a valid payment claim. In this case there was no reference date and therefore the payment claim was invalid and the adjudicator had erred in making the decision and his decision was overturned. The other particularly interesting observation made in this case was whether in circumstances where Southern Han had an entitlement to suspend payment under the contract or the contractor had accepted repudiation of the contract, a reference date was still capable of having occurred. The High Court's answer to that question was "no". Under either scenario there was no further reference date and in the absence of a reference date there's no entitlement to make a payment claim under the security of payment legislation. The High Court's decision means that in practical terms it's going to be difficult for parties to argue in the future whether any further reference dates have accrued after termination of a construction contract.

JACLYN: Now Wayne, moving on to another decision of the High Court in Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation - can you perhaps walk us through some of the issues that come out of this decision? I know the facts themselves might give rise to some practical considerations for people working in the construction industry.

WAYNE: Thanks Jac. Simic is a really interesting case but it's also a scary one. So it's a case about a bank guarantee, unconditional undertaking that had a few slips in it. So the name of the principal wasn't quite right, there was a different job number - those sorts of minor things. No one noticed until the principal went to the bank to call on the bank guarantee and then the bank said "no, you aren't the named principal" and refused to pay. And it took the case to get to the High Court before the High Court said "well, as a matter of law, we can rectify this document so that you can call on the bank guarantee even though you aren't the named party". So things worked out in the end but after very complex legal argument going all the way to the High Court. So to me there are a couple of simple lessons from this case. The first is that banks are appropriately going to interpret these bank guarantees strictly and will not pay out where there are errors. And so the second thing in consequence is that principals have to be absolutely rigorous in scrutinising every detail of these bank guarantees when they are provided under construction contracts. And they need to reject any bank guarantee that has the slightest error to ensure that they don't end up in this process requiring extensive litigation to get to a sensible conclusion.

JACLYN: Andrew, if we could come back to you again. The decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Shade Systems v Probuild Constructions. This was a decision looking at whether you can appeal a decision from an adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. Can you perhaps walk us through some of the key points coming out of that case? We're particularly interested in hearing about this decision given that there's a special leave application due to be heard in the High Court on 12 May.

ANDREW: The decision in Shade Systems v Probuild is really interesting because it considers whether an adjudicator's determination under the security of payment legislation can be quashed on the grounds of a non-jurisdictional error of law. It's widely accepted that jurisdictional errors of law are reviewable but previously under the decision in Brodyn v Davenport the understood or received wisdom has been that non-jurisdictional errors of law are not capable of review. In this case the trial judge reached the conclusion that the incorrect application by the adjudicator in his interpretation of a liquidated damages clause, so that's a non-jurisdictional error of law, was something that was capable of being reviewed and the adjudicator's determination set aside. The Court of Appeal considered this to be a significant issue and it was actually heard before five justices of the Court of Appeal in New South Wales. The Court of Appeal reached a contrary view and one that is more in accord with what the received wisdom of Brodyn v Davenport says. They formed the view that, look, the security of payment legislation is not a finding, a final finding. If you are dissatisfied with a decision by an adjudicator you still have legal remedies to go to court or arbitration, depending on what your contract says. So it's not the end of the line. Furthermore they were strongly of the view that the expeditious procedure that's provided by the security of payment legislation would be undermined if the determination of an adjudicator was subject to judicial review by a court based on an error of law. It would undermine the real purpose of the Act which is to get a binding albeit interim and not final decision, that parties can then proceed to make payment against. As you mentioned earlier, the dissatisfied party in this matter has sought special leave to have the Court of Appeal's decision reviewed. That special leave application is set down for mid-May so we wait and see whether the story has some more chapters to run but I'd say it is probably more likely than not that the Court of Appeal's decision will stand and it will be interesting to see whether the High Court accepts the invitation to further consider matters relevant to the security of payment legislation so soon after its first dalliance with it in the Southern Han case.

JACLYN: Coming back to you, Wayne, the next decision that we'd like to speak about in this update is the Walker Group Constructions v Tzaneros decision coming out of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Now there are lots of key takeaways from this decision - it's quite an important one for people in the industry to be aware of - but one of the key ones that we want to speak about today is in regard to rectification damages.

WAYNE: Sure. This is a case that's a bit like a show bag; it's just full of plenty of exciting things. A lot of interesting discussion about assignment as well. I want to focus on the issue of rectification costs. So we're thinking here about a situation where there are defects. So those defects might arise as a result of some defective design and in that situation you might not get defects absolutely everywhere in every part of the work that's affected by that design. So the question is: "Can you still get rectification costs for every aspect of the design?" and the answer in this case is "yes". The second really interesting issue about rectification is whether those damages should be reduced because the plaintiff might be better off because it might get something newer or better and the answer there is again full rectification costs, that's if the defendant can't show that there's some cheaper way for the works to conform with the contract. So this is I think in short a good decision for principals and for people who take on these properties. As I say there's a great deal in this case. It's one that's really worth reading.

JACLYN: Now Wayne, there have been some developments in the standard form construction contract space. The New Engineering Contract, or NEC as it's probably most familiar to people, are looking to release a new contract suite in June this year. Can you give us some insights into what's happening in this area?

WAYNE: Well, now that the development of AS11000 seems to have stalled, it's probably an appropriate time to look elsewhere and so one of the questions I suppose is whether NEC 4 offers a new hope. And I think there are a couple of things to note about this: this is a new suite of contracts; it's a revised version of NEC 3 – so we're going to revisions of the existing ones. The other thing that's really interesting to note is that there are going to be a couple of new contracts. There's going to be a design, build and operate contract – completely new – and a completely new alliance contract. So they'll certainly be ones for Australian practitioners to look out for. Even if these contracts are not used a lot here, they're used in Hong Kong, they're used in the UK.

JACLYN: One of the decisions come out of the Victorian Supreme Court in December last year that's caused quite a stir in the industry is the decision in McConnell-Dowell Constructors v Santam. Now this was the first decision in Australia where a special referee was appointed to implement a technology assisted review process. This decision follows in the same vein as a few international decisions in the United Kingdom and the United States on technology assisted review. It's worth noting that in these judgements it's often commented that there are significant cost and time savings that could be afforded to parties choosing to employ a technology assisted review process. Now Matthew perhaps if we can turn to you now, one of the processes that you've been involved with is also an associated technology process looking at e-discovery. Can you tell us a little bit more about this?

MATTHEW: Thanks Jaclyn. I've been using e-discovery processes now for about 18 years. Except in about the last two years, there's really been no substantive change in how discovery is undertaken using e-discovery processes. However now with the advancements in technology assisted review the changes really are significant. Corrs was one of the first firms in Australia to adopt technology assisted review systems and we used those recently in a matter I was managing. The matter involved about half a million documents that needed to be reviewed for the purposes of discovery. To put that in context, using traditional discovery methods, the review of that number of documents would take somewhere in the region between two to two and a half thousand man-hours. Using technology assisted review software we were able to undertake that in a significantly less number of hours. The system that we used in this particular case using a technology known as continuous active learning or CAL. So how does continuous active learning work? Well, to put it simply, a single reviewer reviews documents and gives them that relevant score. That relevant score is used to teach the algorithm which supports the system. The algorithm then applies that relevant scoring across the rest of the documents in the database to ensure that only the most relevant documents are reviewed first by a reviewer. People often ask me "Well, how much more efficient is this process than normal?" and to give a typical lawyer's answer: it really depends on the manner [and questions the sort of] documents that you are reviewing. What I can say in this case, instead of taking two to two and a half thousand man-hours, this particular review was completed in 93 man-hours. That really is a significant saving in time and obviously money. But what it does mean more significantly I think is that clients can now spend their money on other more forensic exercises which can have a real bearing on the outcome of the matter rather than spending significant amounts of money completing disclosure exercises which ultimately don't have a key bearing on the outcome of the matter itself. Looking forward, I think technology assisted review is going to become even more important. An IBM report recently posited that about 90% of the world's data was created in the last two years. That simply means that we're creating more and more data so therefore in disclosure exercises there will be more and more documents. In that context it really is fundamental I think to start using these amazing technologies which we at Corrs have been using now for some time.

JACLYN: Thank you very much for that Wayne, Andrew and Matthew. To our listeners, this is a reminder that if you are wanting to download our construction law update publication, just hop onto our website and you'll be able to sign up to receive the update when it's released. My name is Jaclyn Smith and we hope you'll join us for the next episode of Corrs High Vis.

This Podcast is for reference purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should always obtain legal advice about your specific circumstances.

This podcast does not give legal or other professional advice and its contents should not be relied upon as such. Formal legal and other professional advice should be sought in particular matters.

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.

Chambers Asia Pacific Awards 2016 Winner – Australia
Client Service Award
Employer of Choice for Gender Equality (WGEA)

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 Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions