Australia: Cutting off the dead to save the living - construction contracts: Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27; Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28

Two recent WA Court of Appeal decisions clarify the scope of an adjudicator's jurisdiction, issues of set-off, and the ability to sever partially invalid determinations in the context of Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (CCA) adjudications.

The decisions are significant; not least because they are two of only five occasions on which the Court of Appeal has turned its mind to the operation of the CCA since it came into operation on 1 January 2005.1

The first decision, Samsung C&T Corporation v Duro Felguera Australia Pty Ltd [2018] WASCA 27 ('Samsung v Duro'), confirms (among other things) that:

  • an adjudicator's duty to dismiss an application without making a determination of its merits (see section 31(2)(a) of the CCA) does not arise if the adjudication concerns a claim for payment for both 'construction work' and non-'construction work';2 but
  • an adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to determine anything other than a 'payment dispute' in respect of 'construction work' so that an adjudicator will commit jurisdictional error if they purport to determine a payment dispute in respect of non-'construction work'.3

The second decision, Duro Felguera Australia Pty Ltd v Samsung C&T Corporation [2018] WASCA 28 ('Duro v Samsung'), confirms (among other things) that:

  • in determining the merits of a 'payment claim' (the non-payment or disputation of which gives rise to the 'payment dispute'), an adjudicator must determine the merits of any set-off (or other defence) upon which the respondent relies in denying liability for the 'payment claim';4
  • as part of that function, the adjudicator is empowered to consider a set-off made in respect of a prior 'payment claim', in circumstances where that set off is raised as a defence to the 'payment claim' that is the subject of the adjudication (or is otherwise put in issue by the parties); and
  • in the face of differing positions taken by appellate courts in South Australia and Queensland, where a portion (or portions) of a determination are infected by jurisdictional error, the infected portion(s) may be severable from any uninfected portions (which are within jurisdiction), in which case the uninfected portions are enforceable.

FACTS

Both decisions originate from a subcontract by which Samsung engaged Duro to perform various works on the Roy Hill Iron Ore Project. The facts leading up to the appeal were:

  • Samsung disputed Duro's entitlement to payment for work performed between approximately November 2015 and February 2016. Duro applied for the disputes to be adjudicated under the CCA.
  • By five determinations, four adjudicators determined that Samsung was liable to pay Duro amounts totalling more than $60 million.
  • Duro commenced proceedings to enforce the determinations. Samsung, in turn, commenced judicial review proceedings in which Samsung challenged the validity of the determinations on various grounds (including on the ground that the determinations (incorrectly) included components relating to the payment for works which fall outside the statutory definition of 'construction work').
  • On 14 October 2016, the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Beech J) granted Duro leave to enforce three of the determinations ('the first, fourth and fifth determinations'), setting aside two of the determinations (the 'second' and 'third' determinations) for jurisdictional error.5
  • Samsung and Duro, each dissatisfied with the first instance decision, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

SAMSUNG V DURO [2018] WASCA 27 – GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Samsung's appeal sought to impugn the 'first' and 'fifth' determinations. The trial judge concluded that each adjudicator:

  • erred by characterising non-'construction work' (work properly the subject of the 'mining exclusion' in section 4(3) of the CCA) as 'construction work'; however
  • the error was not one of jurisdiction, but rather was made in the exercise of the adjudicator's function under section 31(2)(b) of the CCA, with the effect that neither determination was invalid.

Samsung argued that the adjudicators:

  • Ground 1: lacked jurisdiction to consider and determine a dispute arising from a claim for payment if any of the work the subject of the claim for payment is not 'construction work' within the meaning of section 4 of the CCA; and
  • Ground 2: in the alternative, exceeded their jurisdiction by erroneously including within their determinations amounts relating to non-'construction work'.

The Court of Appeal agreed with 'ground 2', but not 'ground 1', of Samsung's appeal by a 2:1 majority (Buss P and Murphy JA; Martin CJ dissenting).

REASONING

The CCA applies to 'construction contracts'6 (being, contracts under which a person has an obligation to carry out, or supply goods or services relating to, 'construction work').7

Despite argument to the contrary (which Samsung abandoned on the second day of the hearing before the trial judge), the Court of Appeal had little difficulty in concluding that a contract for both 'construction work' and non-'construction work' is a 'construction contract' within the meaning of the CCA. As Buss P and Murphy JA observed:

'There may be some cases (and this is one) where, under the umbrella of the one contract, a person has undertaken (1) 'obligations' to carry out construction work, or supply goods or services 'related to' construction work, as well as (2) the performance of other contractual duties. Such a contract (which may be referred to as an 'umbrella contract') would fall within the terms of the definition of 'construction contract' by reason of the former of those two matters.'8

The dispositive component of the Court of Appeal's decision9 turned on whether and, if so, to what extent, an adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine the merits of a dispute arising from a claim for payment for both 'construction work' and non-'construction work'.

The Court of Appeal focused on the operation of section 31(2) of the CCA which is, most relevantly, in the following terms:

'(2) An appointed adjudicator must, within the prescribed time or any extension of it made under section 32(3)(a) —
  1. dismiss the application without making a determination of its merits if — ...
    1. the application has not been prepared and served in accordance with section 26(1) and (2)(b) and (c); or ...
  1. otherwise, determine on the balance of probabilities whether any party to the payment dispute is liable to make a payment, or to return any security ...'

Samsung's primary submission was that under section 31(2)(a)(ii) of the CCA, an adjudicator must dismiss any application for adjudication of a dispute arising from a claim for payment for both 'construction work' and non-'construction work'. Samsung relied, to that end, on the following logic: (1) section 31(2)(a)(ii) of the CCA requires an adjudicator (before embarking upon a determination of the merits) to determine whether there exists a 'payment dispute'; and (2) a dispute arising from a claim for payment for both 'construction work' and non-'construction work' is not a 'payment dispute'.

The Court of Appeal did not accept Samsung's primary submission, holding that the operative words of section 32(2)(a)(ii) of the CCA 'are clearly directed to compliance with the form and service requirements imposed by s 26 [of the CCA]' (and not the existence of a 'payment dispute').10

Samsung's alternative submission11 (which the Court of Appeal allowed, by 2:1 majority) was that an adjudicator will commit jurisdictional error if they, in the course of determining a 'payment dispute', purport to determine a dispute arising from a claim for payment for non-'construction work'.

Martin CJ (in dissent) rejected Samsung's alternative submission, concluding that 'the assessment of whether work for which payment is claimed is of a kind described in the definition of construction contract is a matter to be determined by an adjudicator in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon him or her by the CCA.'12 In arriving at his conclusion, Martin CJ held:

'significantly, in s 31 of the CCA, the legislature has specifically addressed the question of the conditions which must be satisfied before an adjudicator embarks upon the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred.
... once Samsung's arguments based upon s 31(2)(a)(ii) and s 26 are rejected, there is nothing else in the text of the CCA capable of supporting Samsung's contentions.'13

In contrast, Buss and Murphy JA (in the majority), held that the CCA does not confer on an adjudicator jurisdiction to determine a dispute 'which is not, in point of law, a 'payment dispute' within the meaning of the [CCA]'.14 As Buss and Murphy JA said, of adjudication applications which seek payment for both 'construction work' and non-'construction work':

'... even though there will be no dismissal under s 31(2)(a)(i) in such a case, the absence of dismissal cannot be tantamount, in addition, to an implied conferral of jurisdiction to determine a claim for payment with respect to other contractual duties (which may, for present purposes, be called a 'non-payment claim'). That is because, under s 31(2)(b), when read in the context of s 25 and pt 3 as a whole, an adjudicator has no jurisdiction to determine any dispute other than a 'payment dispute'. There is no power under s 31(2)(b) to determine the underlying 'merits' of a dispute involving a 'non-payment claim'.'15

OBITER OBSERVATIONS

While it does resolve (at least for now) the question of whether a contract for both construction work' and non-'construction work' is a 'construction contract', the Court of Appeal's decision provides rather less certainty in relation to:

  • the scope of the CCA's provisions which operate to prohibit, modify, and imply provisions in 'construction contracts';16 and
  • whether the failure to return retention or security will give rise to 'payment dispute' if the retention money or security relates only to the performance of 'construction work' (see sections 6(1)(b) and 6(1)(c) of the CCA).

While it was unnecessary for the Court of Appeal to decide either point, Martin CJ held:

'[absent] argument to the contrary, [sections 9-23 of the CCA] appear to apply to all construction contracts, including contracts under which the contractor is obliged to carry out work which is construction work and work which is not construction work';17 and
'[the] CCA confers jurisdiction upon an adjudicator to determine a payment dispute arising under a construction contract in relation to the payment of retention moneys, or the return of security held by a party without imposing any obligation upon an adjudicator to determine the extent to which the retention moneys or security related to the performance of construction work.'18

In contrast, after describing the principles of statutory interpretation,19 Buss P and Murphy JA opined that:

'[the] implied provisions apply with respect to a contractor's 'obligations' (as defined in s 3)';20
's 9 and s 10 are concerned, at least primarily (if not exclusively - as to which it is unnecessary to decide) with payment provisions in relation to the 'obligations' of the 'contractor'';21 and
'it is necessary to read sections 6(1)(b) and 6(1)(c) of the CCA as referring to retention money or security 'for the performance of the contractor's 'obligations''.22

DURO V SAMSUNG [2018] WASCA 28 – GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Duro's appeal sought to impugn the trial judge's decision with respect to the 'second' and 'third' determinations. At first instance, Beech J held:

  • regarding the 'second' determination, the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding Samsung was not entitled to set off an amount of $6.6 million which Samsung had paid on account because Samsung had wrongly withheld an amount of $13.2 million from a payment previously due to Duro;23 and
  • regarding the 'third' determination, the adjudicator committed jurisdictional error in ordering that a $34 million amount was payable to Duro, and that the remaining components of the determination (which were not erroneous) could not be severed, so the entire determination was void.24

Duro appealed on the following grounds:

  • Ground 1: Duro argued the 'second' determination was within the jurisdiction conferred upon the adjudicator by the CCA (Set-off Issue); and
  • Ground 2: Duro, while conceding that the adjudicator committed jurisdictional error in ordering the $34 million amount was payable,25 argued the judge erred in finding that severance of the other amounts that Samsung was ordered to pay Duro was not permissible (Severance Issue).

Duro's appeal was wholly successful. The Court of Appeal unanimously found in Duro's favour on the Set-off Issue, with Buss P and Murphy JA finding in Duro's favour on the Severance Issue (with Martin CJ dissenting).

SET-OFF ISSUE

In the 'second' determination the adjudicator accepted that Samsung had made an advance payment of $6.6 million on account to Duro, but determined that Samsung was not entitled to set off that amount against Duro's November progress claim, being the relevant payment claim. The adjudicator reasoned that because Samsung had wrongfully set-off $13.2 million for liquidated damages against Duro's October 2015 progress claim, Samsung was not entitled to further set off the amount of $6.6 million, given there was not a balance in favour of Samsung having regard to those two amounts.

Beech J held that 'the adjudicator was not empowered ... to apply his conclusion that Samsung was not entitled to a set-off for liquidated damages to Samsung's response to an earlier, separate payment claim, and then to credit Duro with the amount of that 'wrongful' set-off against Samsung's right to credit for its payment on account.'26

Drawing support from Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James,27 his Honour was of the view that the adjudicator's function of determining the amount of money payable by one party to the other was not at large but was confined, relevantly, by the payment claim founding the payment dispute.28

Martin CJ (with whom Buss P and Murphy JA generally agreed) found the primary judge had erred, accepting the following three principal submissions advanced by Duro:29

  • first, Samsung's entitlement to deduct the liquidated damages it had claimed against Duro was put squarely in issue by both parties.30 Indeed, because the entitlement to deduct liquidated damages and the entitlement to set off the $6.66 million payment on account were raised as defences to Duro's claim, they were matters the adjudicator was obliged to determine;31
  • second, in order to determine whether Samsung was liable to make a payment to Duro in respect of the November progress claim, it was necessary for the adjudicator to determine whether Samsung's payment of $6.66 million on account had in fact given rise to a credit in the balance of account between Samsung and Duro which could be set off against the amount which Duro claimed in the November progress claim.32 Martin CJ confirmed that an adjudicator is required to ascertain entitlement to payment as at the date of the determination, so that all evidence which is relevant to the amount of the liability, if any, as at the date of determination should be received by the adjudicator.33 His Honour held this was, in effect, what the adjudicator did; and
  • third, the adjudicator correctly only allowed Duro to use Samsung's wrongful withholding of $13.1 million as a shield to Samsung's claim to set off $6.6 million – not as a sword whereby Duro was entitled to payment of the difference.34

In so finding, Martin CJ confirmed35 previous decisions (including Alliance Contracting) to the effect that adjudicators are obliged to determine whether the entitlement to the payment claimed has been satisfied, entirely or in part, by set-off,36 and that a counterclaim cannot be used as a sword resulting in a determination that money is payable to the respondent.37

SEVERANCE ISSUE

The adjudicator's 'third' determination was that Samsung was liable to pay Duro $49.6 million, made up of three components:

  • an amount said by Duro to have been certified as payable by Samsung but 'set off' in the sum of approximately $34.2 million;
  • amounts claimed in respect of the 'car dumper claims' totalling approximately $14.7 million; and
  • part of an amount claimed for certain commissioning costs totalling approximately $0.7 million.

At first instance, Beech J held that:

  • the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction in finding that the $49.6 million was payable to Duro because he included, in jurisdictional error, the amount of $32.4 million in his calculations; and
  • the $14.7 million and $0.7 million amounts were not severable from the adjudicator's decision because the court 'has no power to substitute a different adjudicated amount to reflect that part of the amount that is unaffected by jurisdictional error'.38

On appeal, Buss P and Murphy JA framed the relevant question as 'whether the [CCA], properly construed, reveals a legislative intention that an adjudicator's determination under s 31(2)(b) as recorded in or evidenced by his or her decision under s 36, is to operate as an organic and indivisible whole."39 Their Honours held it did not,40 for the following reasons:

  • first, the CCA recognises the essential statutory function of the adjudicator will commonly involve the determination of identifiable, divisible, amounts;41
  • second, sections 33 (interest) and 36(c)(i) (content of the determination) of the CCA operate on the basis that a determination may involve a determination of divisible amounts with different consequences;42
  • third, the effective operation of sections 38 to 43 of the CCA does not depend upon an adjudicator's determination operating as an organic and indivisible whole;43 and
  • fourth, the CCA is beneficial legislation, and accordingly the decisions of adjudicators, to the extent that they deal with the adjudication of a 'payment dispute', within the meaning of s 31(2)(b), are to have the fullest operation.44

Buss P and Murphy JA held that if followed, applying the common law principles of severance, that the invalid component of the determination could be severed from the remainder of the determination. This is because the invalid part of the adjudicator's determination did not influence the making, or form an integral or essential element, of the valid part of his decision.45 Hence, certiorari was available to quash the determination with respect to the $34.2 million component of the determination, but the $14.7 million and $0.7 million amounts remained valid.

In contrast, Martin CJ followed a number of decisions in Western Australia,46 New South Wales,47 and Queensland48 (including the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal)49 in which it had been held that the determination required of an adjudicator, being of 'the' amount due and owing, is a single composite determination which cannot, and should not, be regarded as made up of severable and divisible components.50 His Honour declined to follow the contrary decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.51

As a result, the invalid component of the determination could not be severed from the remainder, rendering the entire determination void. Martin CJ warned that concluding that the invalid portion of the determination could be severed is a:

'conclusion that the court has power to make orders which would, in effect, result in a different determination to that made by an adjudicator, taking effect at a time outside the time constraints imposed by the CCA, and without regard to any events which had taken place between the original determination and the decision of the court, [and] would result not only in curial usurpation of the powers and functions conferred exclusively upon an administrative decision-maker, but would also be contrary to the general scheme and purpose of the legislation.'52

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Samsung v Duro makes clear that adjudicators exercising jurisdiction under the CCA cannot award payment for work which does not satisfy the statutory definition of 'construction work'. That being the case, prospective applicants (contractors and subcontractors) should, to the extent possible, take care to clearly separate each claim item and claim amount, so that an adjudicator can distinguish between claims for payment for 'construction work' and non-'construction work' in the event that a dispute reaches adjudication. While there is room for further debate on where the dividing line lies, prospective applicants should also treat claims for 'mixed items' (items which relate to 'construction work' and non-'construction work', such as preliminaries and off-site overheads) with caution.

The good news (for applicants) is that the existence of jurisdictional error in a favourable determination does not necessarily spell complete disaster. Duro v Samsung clarifies that an adjudicator's determination is valid to the extent that it is possible to sever, in accordance with common law principles, any part of the determination which suffers from jurisdictional error. Respondents will, therefore, need to consider the quantum of the work the subject of a determination which (arguably) falls short of 'construction work' in deciding whether to commence judicial review proceedings.

The Court of Appeal's decisions reflect the current position. At the time of writing, neither Samsung nor Duro has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal either decision (and the 28 day period for doing so has expired). However, there is much to be said for the strength of Martin CJ's dissenting reasons, which will not be tested unless and until the High Court has an occasion to consider the issues (including, in particular, the issues regarding severance) that are the subject of the appeals.

Footnotes

1The other Court of Appeal decisions on the CCA are: Perrinepod Pty Ltd v Georgiou Building Pty Ltd (2011) 43 WAR 319; Diploma Construction (WA) Pty Ltd v CAP Architects Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 91; and Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Samsung C&T Corporation (2016) 50 WAR 399.

2 See especially Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [90] (Martin CJ); [174] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

3 See especially Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [174]-[179] (Buss P and Murphy JA; Martin CJ dissenting).

4 This is consistent with the Supreme Court of Western Australia's recent decision in Total Eden Pty Ltd v Charteris [2018] WASC 60 [55]-[61].

5 See Samsung C&T Corporation v Loots [2016] WASC 330 (Beech J).

6 CCA, s 7(1).

7 CCA, s 3 (definition of 'construction contract').

8 Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [172] (Buss P and Murphy JA). See also Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [13] (Martin CJ).

9 See Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [72]-[90] (Martin CJ); [172]-[180] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

10 See Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [73] (Martin CJ); [169] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

11 Which Samsung ironically abandoned on the second day of the hearing before the trial judge

12 Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [90] (Martin CJ).

13 See Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [84]-[86] (Martin CJ).

14 See Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [172]-[180] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

15 Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [174] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

16 See CCA, ss 9-23.

17 Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [15]-[16] (Martin CJ).

18 Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [26] (Martin CJ).

19 Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [146] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

20 Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [147] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

21 Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [150] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

22 Samsung v Duro [2018] WASCA 27 [154]-[159] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

23 Samsung C&T Corporation v Loots [2016] WASC 330 [163] (Beech J).

24 Samsung C&T Corporation v Loots [2016] WASC 330 [276]-[281] (Beech J).

25 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [5] (Martin CJ).

26 Samsung C&T Corporation v Loots [2016] WASC 330 [163].

27 [2014] WASC 212 [60].

28 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [12] (Martin CJ), [276]-[277] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

29 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [18] (Martin CJ).

30 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [17] (Martin CJ).

31 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [34] (Martin CJ).

32 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [17] (Martin CJ).

33 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [37] (Martin CJ).

34 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [17] (Martin CJ).

35 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [36] (Martin CJ).

36 Zurich Bay Holdings Pty Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Engineering and Infastructure Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 39 [22] (Le Miere J); Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212 [50] – [76] (Beech J); Cooper & Oxley Builders Pty Ltd v Steensma [2016] WASC 386 [22] (Le Miere J). This is also consistent with the Supreme Court of Western Australia's recent decision in Total Eden Pty Ltd v Charteris [2018] WASC 60 [55]-[61].

37 Alliance Contracting Pty Ltd v James [2014] WASC 212 [50] – [76] (Beech J); Cooper & Oxley Builders Pty Ltd v Steensma [2016] WASC 386 [21] (Le Miere J).

38 Samsung C&T Corporation v Loots [2016] WASC 330 [416] (Beech J).

39 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [140] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

40 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [143] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

41 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [144] (Buss P and Murphy JA). In relation to this point, Buss P and Murphy JA highlighted that the 'The phrase 'payment of an amount' [in the definition of 'payment claim'] is apt to include a reference to payment of 'amounts'' by operation of s 10(c) of the Interpretation Act 2004 (WA) (which provides that 'words in the singular number include the plural and words in the plural number include the singular').

42 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [147] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

43 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [148] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

44 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [149] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

45 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [150] (Buss P and Murphy JA).

46 M+W Singapore Pte Ltd v Anstee-Brook [2016] WASC 310.

47 Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Luikens [2003] NSWSC 1140 [92]; Trysams Pty Ltd v Club Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1298 [16]; Anderson Street Banksmeadow Pty Ltd v Helcon Contracting Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 657 [9].

48 Thiess Pty Ltd v Warren Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 373 [61]; Thiess Pty Ltd v Warren Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 141 [28]-[29]; James Trowse Constructions Pty Ltd v ASAP Plasterers Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 145 [55].

49 BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd [2015] 1 Qd R 228.

50 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [83] (Martin CJ).

51 Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vandasz (No 2) (2017) 127 SASR 193.

52 Duro v Samsung [2018] WASCA 28 [84] (Martin CJ).

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
 
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
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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