Australia: Recent judgment provides key Security of Payment insights

Last Updated: 26 April 2018
Article by Scott Alden and Joshua Clark
Most Read Contributor in Australia, September 2018

Case Update: Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq); Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) v Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 412


A recent NSW Supreme Court case has considered:

  • the rectification of a construction contract where the final terms are inconsistent with, and do not reflect, the parties' common intention at the time of entering into the contract; and
  • the availability of Security of Payment to an insolvent contractor.

The case – Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq); Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) v Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 412 – creates a division between NSW and Victoria in how each jurisdiction's courts apply the building and construction industry Security of Payment legislation to insolvent companies.

Justice Stevenson found that the Victorian Court of Appeal's decision in Façade Treatment Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq) v Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 247 (Façade) was "plainly wrong" in finding that the payment regime in the security of payment legislation was not available to companies in liquidation. However, agreement about the automatic effect of s553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act) to payment claims involving an insolvent company may limit the practical difference between future results in each state.

Nevertheless, clarification in future cases will be necessary after this bold disagreement of a NSW judge with the decision of a superior Victorian Court.

The case also demonstrates the value of having the parties' pre-contractual understandings recorded in writing in case a mistake is made in the contract and one party seeks rectification.


On 6 September 2016, the plaintiff, Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd (SWC), as contractor, entered into a contract with Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (Ostwald) as subcontractor, for the performance of works on the Pacific Highway (the Contract). On 24 August 2017, SWC terminated the Contract.

On 28 July 2017, Ostwald had served on SWC a payment claim for $6,351,066.08, pursuant to s13 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the SOPA). On 11 August 2017, SWC served on Ostwald a payment schedule pursuant to s14 of the SOPA, which proposed to make a payment of $2,505,237.58 as the scheduled amount.

On 27 September 2017, having not received any payment from SWC, Ostwald made an adjudication application under s17(1)(a)(ii) of the SOPA, relying on s16(2)(a)(ii). The resulting adjudication determined the amount owed by SWC to Ostwald to be $5,074,218.27.

On 30 November 2017, Ostwald's creditors resolved to wind up the company under s439C(c) of the Corporations Act. Having appointed administrators the day after the Contract was terminated, Ostwald's winding up was taken to have commenced on that day – 25 August 2017.


With the Court's leave, SWC sought a declaration that the adjudication determination was void and a stay of any judgment - arising from Ostwald's filing of an adjudication certificate - until the final determination of the parties' rights.

Main issues

The first issue to be determined was whether the Contract should be rectified as sought by Ostwald. An inconsistency between terms in the Contract resulted in there being two possible payment due dates for SWC of the payment claim served by Ostwald. This was significant, in light of the main dispute about the timeliness of Ostwald's adjudication application, below.

The second issue was whether Ostwald made its adjudication application in time, upon consideration of s16 and s17 of the SOPA.

The third issue was whether Ostwald was entitled to rely on the provisions of the SOPA now that it was in liquidation.

The fourth issue was whether Ostwald's enforcement of its adjudication determination should be stayed in light of the mandatory "set-off" procedure under s553C of the Corporations Act.

Should the Contract be rectified?

The Contract was comprised of the "Formal Instrument of Agreement", the "Special Conditions" and the "Subcontract Conditions". There was an inconsistency between the due date provided by the Subcontract Conditions and that provided by the Special Conditions; the latter which had priority over the former in the event of any such inconsistency, per the Formal Instrument of Agreement. Payment was therefore due either "within 30 days of the end of month of claim" (Clause 20.7 of the Subcontract) or "within 15 Business Days after the Contractor receives the payment claim" (Clause 9.1 of the Special Conditions).

Ostwald argued that, notwithstanding the priority of the Special Conditions in the event of a discrepancy, the 30 day time limit was what was agreed to by the parties.

A "Departures Table" created by the parties set out their respective negotiation positions regarding clauses in the contract prior to its execution. With respect to the payment date, SWC's recorded position was that it required payment within 30 days from the end of the month in which the claim is made. This was described in the table as "non-negotiable". Further, a "set up form" sent by SWC to Ostwald on the day the contract was executed stated, "Stated Payment Terms are 30 Days from Month End unless otherwise arranged".

Justice Stevenson considered the principles for rectification summarised in Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2016] HCA 47. The prerequisites for rectification include that the parties had an agreement or "common intention" at the time of the contract's execution, including that the written instrument would conform to that agreement, and that the instrument did not conform because of a common mistake. Those matters must be satisfied with "clear and convincing evidence". What matters is the subjective and actual intention of the parties, objectively ascertained.

Justice Stevenson found that the evidence clearly confirmed the common intention of the parties as to the 30 day time limit, and that the written agreement did not reflect the agreement because of a common mistake. In so finding, his Honour rejected SWC's submission that rectification should not be granted because rectification would affect the adjudicator as an "innocent third party" by "giving him statutory powers and imposing on him statutory duties that he otherwise would not have had".

Accordingly, Justice Stevenson ordered the deletion of clause 9.1 of the Special Conditions to rectify the Contract.

Was the adjudication application made in time?

Since a rectified document is treated as having been in its rectified form from its execution, s16(1) of the SOPA was enlivened and satisfied when SWC did not pay Ostwald by the due date of 20 August 2017. Accordingly, Ostwald was entitled to rely on s16(2)(a)(ii) to make an adjudication application under s17(1)(a)(ii) from that date. As per s17(3)(d), such applications must be made within 20 business days after the due date for payment, which was 27 September 2017. It was on this day that Ostwald made the application.

SWC argued that, on a proper construction of s17 of the SOPA, Ostwald made its application out of time. In particular, it was contended that s17(1)(a)(i) and s17(1)(a)(ii) provide two alternatives, where the latter is only available when the circumstances described in the former are not met. This would have the effect of limiting the time for Ostwald to have made its adjudication application to within 10 days from when it received the payment schedule from SWC, per s17(3)(c).

However, Justice Stevenson disagreed, finding that the provisions were not alternatives in that sense – once the circumstances described in s17(1)(a)(ii) were met, the 20 business day limit in s17(3)(d) applied, whether or not s17(1)(a)(i) also applied.

Therefore, his Honour held that Ostwald made its adjudication application in time.

In the alternative, Justice Stevenson determined Ostwald was entitled to rely on s16(2)(a)(i), to recover the unpaid portion of the scheduled amount "as a debt due... in any court of competent jurisdiction", if its adjudication application was not made within time (though this was unnecessary given his Honour's conclusion above).

His Honour considered the principle, from GJ Coles & Co Ltd v Retail Trade Industrial Tribunal (1986) 7 NSWLR 503 (GL Coles), that the failure to perform a mandatory condition imposed by statute invalidates the doing of any act dependent on the fulfilment of that condition, such that the act is incapable of creating legal consequences. Applied to the hypothetical at hand, the issue was whether an adjudication application that was made out of time was capable of being an election under s16(2)(a)(ii); if so, the alternative route under s16(2)(a)(i) would be foreclosed to the claimant.

Justice Stevenson found that the words "adjudication application" in s16(2)(a)(ii) could not be construed to include an application made out of time, given it did not fulfil the requirements of s17(3) and thus did not satisfy the definition of "adjudication application" in s4 of the SOPA. According to his Honour, to hold otherwise would amount to rewriting the statutory definition.

Applying the principle from GJ Coles, Justice Stevenson found that it therefore would have been open for Ostwald to seek recovery of the unpaid scheduled amount under s16(2(a)(i) if its adjudication application under s16(2)(a)(ii) had been made out of time.

Can a company in liquidation rely on the SOPA?

The question of whether the SOPA continued to apply after Ostwald was wound up turned on whether Ostwald was still a "claimant" for the purposes of Pt 3 of the Act.

In Façade, the Victorian Court of Appeal found that a subcontractor in liquidation is not a "claimant" under the Building and Construction Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (the Victorian SOPA). Justice Stevenson was bound to that decision unless it was "plainly wrong".

Ultimately, his Honour did consider the decision in Façade to be "plainly wrong".

The Court in Façade had interpreted the meaning of "claimant" from s14 of the Victorian SOPA, which resembles s13 of the SOPA. Section 14 of the Victorian SOPA entitled a person referred to in s9 of that Act to serve a progress claim, thereafter referring to that person as "the claimant" for the remainder of Part 3 of the Victorian SOPA (which provides for the enforcement of rights arising from the service of a progress claim). Section 9(1) of the Victorian SOPA, which mirrors s8(1) of the SOPA, provides that a person who has "undertaken" to carry out construction work is entitled to a progress payment. By reference also to extrinsic materials and other parts of the legislation, this section was found to connote the continued performance of construction work.

On this interpretation of the Victorian SOPA, only a person who could continue to perform construction work can benefit from Part 3 of that Act. This evidently excludes companies in liquidation, as concluded by the Court in Façade.

On the contrary, Justice Stevenson found that nothing in s9 of the Victorian SOPA indicates that "undertake" means not only to undertake to carry out construction work, but also to "continue to perform such activities". Further, his Honour noted that the term "the claimant" used in s14 of the Victorian SOPA is not its statutory definition, which is in fact found in s4. Significantly, the Victorian Court of Appeal did not have regard to s4. "Claimant" is defined in s4 of the Victorian SOPA as "a person who serves a payment claim under section 14." Thus, a person's status as a "claimant" depends only on whether the person served, and was entitled to serve, a payment claim by virtue of an asserted entitlement to a progress payment. Justice Stevenson held that this status contains no additional requirement that the person undertook to carry out construction work.

His Honour illustrated the inaptness of the interpretation of 'claimant' in Façade, with the example of a person who has served a payment claim but finished the requisite construction work and vacated the site. That person could not continue to carry out construction work and therefore, on the Victorian Court of Appeal's interpretation, would not be entitled to serve and enforce a payment claim.

Having determined that the decision in Façade was "plainly wrong", Justice Stevenson concluded that Ostwald remained a "claimant" for the purpose of the SOPA notwithstanding that it had been wound up.

Should enforcement of the adjudication determination be stayed?

Since Ostwald went into liquidation after it made the adjudication application but before it moved for judgment, s553C of the Corporations Act dictated that an account must be taken of the parties' liabilities against each other. Section 553C had automatic and "self-executing" effect upon the winding up of Ostwald.

Justice Stevenson accepted the correctness of the propositions referred to in Façade, which note that the operation of s553C has the effect that the original claim is overridden by the statutory process in s553C. This meant that Ostwald could not enforce the adjudication determination and could only recover from SWC any such amount as determined under s553C.

Is there an inconsistency with s109 of the Constitution?

Justice Stevenson, in obiter, considered the possibility that the SOPA is inconsistent with s553C of the Corporations Act for the purposes of s109 of the Constitution. Support for this view had been expressed by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Façade, but only in obiter. Justice Stevenson appeared to cast doubt on the Victorian Court of Appeal's view in light of other judicial opinion on the point, but suggested that further consideration would be needed.

This publication does not deal with every important topic or change in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you have found this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances please contact one of the named individuals listed.

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.

Scott Alden
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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