Author: admin

Builder collapses (liquidation or administration) are putting subcontractors at substantial risk not only in relation to money that is owed, but money that they have already been paid. Justin Mathews of QBM Lawyers provides expert advice in relation to building matters. He is an accredited specialist in commercial litigation and a registered adjudicator under Queensland’s Building Industry Fairness legislation. Prompt action by subcontractors in the event of builder collapses can make the difference between recovering or going unpaid, particularly where a subcontractor’s charge might be available. Further, irregular payment by a builder can put a subcontractor at risk of payments received being clawed back as preferences, with the subcontractor not only losing out for unpaid work, but possibly having to pay back money received in the 6 month period before liquidation. In these times of financial pressure on builders, it is important for contractors to take care that their support of a builder with cash flow issues does not put them in the firing line for preference actions months or years later – as an example in the case of the Cullen Constructions builder collapse, more than 10 subcontractors were sued for amounts that had been paid in the 6 month period prior to liquidators being appointed, which in aggregate exceeded $2M. As a result, in the situation of builder collapses getting paid does not necessarily mean that troubles are over, if there is reason to believe that the builder is struggling financially. For advice in relation to preference claims, building contracts recovery options including subcontractor charges, contact our Partner Justin Mathews at justinm@qbmlaw.com.au or 5574 0111.

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2022/QSC22-041.pdf Rather than reading a 10th hand account of this on facebook (if anyone is still interested) feel free to review the decision of the Queensland Supreme Court at the above link given 5 April, 2022, dealing with whether the Chief Health Officer was required to give reasons for three directions made in respect of COVID matters, generally going to vaccination status. And the answer was “no”, though the question revolved around whether the directions themselves were matters of a legislative nature (in which case reasons were not required), or an administrative character (in which case reasons would be required). Ultimately not a particularly fascinating topic, but it is a subject that seems to generate debate of much enthusiasm.

While it is not something that QBM Lawyers generally practice in, this recent decision of the Childrens’ Court relates to parenting orders made in a surrogacy situation and has quite a fascinating summary of the Surrogacy Act 2010 and the considerations under it. https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QChC/2022/4

What happens where a person has died and there is a dispute as to whether they had capacity to make their last will? That can put the executor named in the last will in a difficult position, as their role is dependent on the last will being valid. There are remedies available for both the proposed executor and the person disputing capacity. A person can file a caveat in the Supreme Court, under rule 624 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. That caveat can require proof of the will “in solemn form” which requires the Supreme Court to consider the circumstances surrounding the making of the will before granting probate. The Court will then consider the relevant evidence surrounding the making of the will to determine whether the will maker had proper capacity to make the will. If it is satisfied, it will issue a grant in solemn form. This was done recently in the matter of Campbell V Campbell [2022] QSC 34. The judgment is worth reading to see the sorts of factor that are taken into account. https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QSC/2022/34 For enquiries about wills and estates, please contact Jessica Murray or Peter Muller, on 5574 0111.