Gantley Pty Ltd & Ors v Phoenix International Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] VSC 106

Gantley Pty Ltd & Ors v Phoenix International Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] VSC 106 - VSC 2010 case summary — Zoe

[35]

The main purpose of the Act is to ensure that any person who carries out construction work, or provides related goods or services, is able to promptly recover progress payments. The Government wanted to stamp out the practice of developers and contractors delaying payment to subcontractors and suppliers by ignoring progress claims, raising spurious reasons for not paying, or simply delaying payment. ...

The Act was designed to ensure prompt payment and, for that purpose, the Act set up a unique form of adjudication of disputes over the amount due for payment. Parliament intended that a progress payment, on account, should be made promptly and that any disputes over the amount finally due should be decided separately. The final determination could be by a court or by an agreed dispute resolution procedure. But meanwhile the claimant's entitlement, if in dispute, would be decided on an interim basis by an adjudicator, and that interim entitlement would be paid ...

Cash flow is the lifeblood of the construction industry. Final determination of disputes is often very time consuming and costly. We are determined that, pending final determination of all disputes, contractors and subcontractors should be able to obtain a prompt interim payment on account, as always intended under the Act ...

... there will be instances when the progress payment determined by the adjudicator will be more or less than the entitlement finally determined to be due under the contract. However, it is better that progress payments be made promptly on an interim basis, assessed by an independent party, rather than they be delayed indefinitely until all issues are finally determined.

Presently, when a respondent fails to pay the claimant by the due date for payment under the contract, the claimant's only recourse to enforce payment is to commence proceedings in a court. The Bill will give the claimant another option. The claimant will be able to opt to have an adjudicator determine the amount of the progress payment that is due. This is an "optional adjudication". The claimant will still be able to proceed to adjudication earlier if the respondent provides a payment schedule and the scheduled amount is less than the amount claimed. The benefit to the claimant of proceeding with an optional adjudication rather than commencing proceedings in a court is that the claimant will then be able to use the adjudication certificate to obtain judgment expeditiously and without a court hearing. The claimant will be able to initiate an optional adjudication when the respondent fails to provide a payment schedule within time and fails to pay the amount claimed, or the respondent provides a payment schedule but fails to pay the whole of the scheduled amount.

[79]

It is necessary to decide whether the invoice meets the requirements of s 14. The test is an objective one; that is, it must be clear from the terms of the document that it contains the required information: Walter Construction Group Ltd v CPL (Surry Hills) Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 266 at [82]. But the terms must be read in context. Payment claims are usually given and received by parties experienced in the building industry who are familiar with the particular construction contract, the history of the project and any issues which may have arisen between them regarding payment. Those matters are part of the context: Multiplex Constructions [2003] NSWSC 1140 at [76].

The manner in which compliance with s 14 is tested is not overly demanding: Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Campbelltown Catholic Club Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1103 at [54] citing Hawkins Construction (Aust) Pty Ltd v Mac's Industrial Pipework Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 136 at [20] ("[The requirements for a payment claim] should not be approached in an unduly technical manner ... As the words are used in relation to events occurring in the construction industry, they should be applied in a commonsense practical manner"); Multiplex Constructions [2003] NSWSC 1140 at [76] ("[A] payment claim and a payment schedule must be produced quickly; much that is contained therein in an abbreviated form which would be meaningless to the uninformed reader will be understood readily by the parties themselves"); Minimax Fire Fighting Systems Pty Ltd v Bremore Engineering (WA Pty Ltd) [2007] QSC 333 at [20] ("The Act emphasises speed and informality. Accordingly one should not approach the question whether a document satisfies the description of a payment schedule (or payment claim for that matter) from an unduly critical viewpoint").

Nonetheless a payment claim must be sufficiently detailed to enable the principal to understand the basis of the claim. If a reasonable principal is unable to ascertain with sufficient certainty the work to which the claim relates, he will not be able to provide a meaningful payment schedule. That is to say, a payment claim must put the principal in a position where he is able to decide whether to accept or reject the claim and, if the principal opts for the latter, to respond appropriately in a payment schedule: Nepean Engineering Pty Ltd v Total Process Services Pty Ltd (in liq) [2005] NSWCA 409; (2005) 64 NSWLR 462, 477; John Holland Pty Ltd v Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 258 at [18]- [21]. That is not an unreasonable price to pay to obtain the benefits of the statute.

[83]

In my opinion, a document which purports to be a payment claim does not fail to be a payment claim, within the meaning of the Act, merely because it can be seen, after a full investigation of all the facts and circumstances, not to successfully identify all the construction work for which payment is claimed. This could be the case, for example, if there is some typographical omission or other error in relation to one of a large number of items included in the claim; and the question whether or not the other party, by reason of its knowledge of the project, would have been able to fill in or correct that error could be one depending on a great deal of evidence concerning the circumstances of the case. In my opinion, it is inconceivable that it was the intention of the legislature that the existence of a payment claim under the Act should depend on that kind of consideration.

It is true that, if a payment claim does not identify the work in a way comprehensible to the respondent to the claim, the respondent will be in difficulty in formulating a payment schedule, and this may give rise to further difficulty in any adjudication proceedings, inter alia because of the provisions to which I referred in par.[18] above. But in my opinion, if a respondent is unable to identify some of the work in respect of which a payment claim is made, it can in the payment schedule say it does not propose to make any payment in respect of that work because it cannot identify the work, and because for that reason it disputes that the work was done or done to a standard justifying payment, or was within the contract or within any variation of it, and that any pre-condition to payment was satisfied. If an adjudicator then determined that the work was not identified in the payment claim, presumably he or she would not award any payment in respect of that work; and if the adjudicator determined that it was identified, the adjudicator could address matters put in issue in that general way by the respondent.

That is, I do not think a payment claim can be treated as a nullity for failure to comply with s.13(2)(a) of the Act, unless the failure is patent on its face; and this will not be the case if the claim purports in a reasonable way to identify the particular work in respect of which the claim is made.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (479 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (14)

Cases Cited (15)