• Level 5, Evandale Place, 142 Bundall Road, Bundall, QLD, Australia

Blog

Responding To Payment Claims

If you have received a payment claim for building work and do not believe that it is owed or there is an offsetting claim, you must respond by serving a valid Payment Schedule on the ­earlier of 15 business days after the payment claim is received, or a shorter period if specified in the contract.  Many contracts provide for an earlier time for the response, so care has to be taken to act quickly. The requirements for a valid Payment Schedule in Queensland  are: Many contracts provide for making a payment certificate in response to a progress claim and sometimes that obligation accelerates the time for giving a payment schedule.    It is critical to have the payment schedule served within the proper time if there is any dispute as to the payment, because if you do not: Firstly, the claimant can sue for the amount claimed in a payment claim in court, and you are unable to defend or counterclaim for matters that ought to have been in the payment schedule; Second, if the contractor starts the adjudication process you cannot run arguments to liability on the basis of what ought to have been in the payment schedule; Third, the contractor can suspend work until payment is made. The requirements of the Act are quite technical and often contractors and subcontractors do not properly follow the processes correctly, losing rights.  Obtaining assistance from a lawyer who works in the building and construction area gives protection against that. In my next article I will discuss the adjudication process. Meet The Author! Meet the author of this blog article, Justin Mathews. Over the next several weeks, we will post a series of articles relating to Queensland building and construction matters written by Justin. Justin is a registered Adjudicator in Queensland under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 and also in the Northern Territory under its security of payment legislation, and an accredited specialist in commercial litigation.  He represents a number of Queensland building contractors and other parties in building and construction disputes both through the adjudication process and in the various state courts of Queensland, New South Wales, and Northern Territory, as well as advice in relation to contractual matters, and QBCC regulatory matters including matters involving the statutory warranty scheme. In these articles Justin will discuss a number of matters of interest to members of the Queensland building and construction industry. For enquiries concerning building matters, Justin can be contacted by email justinm@qbmlaw.com.au or Ph: (07) 5574 0111. Also Read: Queensland’s security for payment legislation – the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 Starting an Adjudication

Queensland’s security for payment legislation – the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017

After many years of contractors being exhausted financially and delayed by having disputes over payment run through the court system, in 2004 Queensland joined other states in making legislation designed to fast track the determination of claims to payment.  That legislation was then revised in 2017 to the current Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017.  The security of payment legislation is a statutory regime for builders and subcontractors to utilise to recover monies owing for payment claims for work done under a construction contract by following a process to adjudication. Adjudication is fast and cost effective in comparison to the onerous process of a court, and a “must use” tool for contractors and subcontractors and starts by the making of a “payment claim” which I will discuss briefly today.  A valid payment claim is essential to making a successful adjudication application as an Adjudicator will not be able to decide whether anything must be paid unless the payment claim is valid. The requirements for a valid payment claim under the Act include: A reference date is a date stated in the construction contract that states the date for the making of a progress claim for work done (e.g. 25th day of each month, or last day of the month etc).  If there is no date specified in the construction contract to make a progress claim, the reference date is worked out by applying section 67 of the Act.  The reference date will be the last day of the month in which the work commenced and the last day of each latter month. A payment claim must be served by the party who carried out the construction work on the party who is liable to pay for the construction work under a construction contract.  Proper service of a payment claim is an essential requirement to proceed to an adjudication.  Service of a payment claim must be effected in accordance with section 102 of the Act and/or section 39 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954.  If a payment claim is not validly served, it will be invalid and consequently an adjudication application to recover payment pursuant to the payment claim will fail. In my next article, I will discuss what is needed to respond when a payment claim is received. Meet The Author! Meet the author of this blog article, Justin Mathews. Over the next several weeks, we will post a series of articles relating to Queensland building and construction matters written by Justin. Justin is a registered Adjudicator in Queensland under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 and also in the Northern Territory under its security of payment legislation, and an accredited specialist in commercial litigation.  He represents a number of Queensland building contractors and other parties in building and construction disputes both through the adjudication process and in the various state courts of Queensland, New South Wales, and Northern Territory, as well as advice in relation to contractual matters, and QBCC regulatory matters including matters involving the statutory warranty scheme. In these articles Justin will discuss a number of matters of interest to members of the Queensland building and construction industry. For enquiries concerning building matters, Justin can be contacted by email justinm@qbmlaw.com.au or Ph: (07) 5574 0111.

Basic Estate Planning Essentials

Where clients do not have assets in companies or held in trusts, in many cases their estate planning intentions can be dealt with by a binding death nomination (if they have a superannuation interest) and a will, with other useful documents being an enduring power of attorney and an advance health directive. A rough guide to the function of these documents is: Your will: Binding death nomination (“BDN”): Enduring power of attorney: Advance Health Directive: Please contact us if you would like to discuss your estate planning needs. For current pricing on these services, please call Jessica Murray or email jessicam@qbmlaw.com.au

Telemarketer agreements and door to door sales – the trap of arranging a later meeting

Consumers have a number of rights of termination in relation to unsolicited consumer agreements (arising from telemarketed sales, or door to door sales). An unsolicited consumer agreement is generally (with a number of exceptions) an agreement: For the supply of products or services to a consumer; Where the supplier or salesperson approaches the consumer without the consumer’s invitation; The negotiations for which take place over the telephone, or in person at a location other than the supplier’s premises. The concept is for an unsolicited agreement to be one where the direct contact is initiated by the seller.  If the contact is initiated by the customer (eg by the customer responding to an advertisement or web page, phoning the business, or going to the showroom premises) then usually the resulting agreement would not be unsolicited. A critical aspect of this is that the consumer not “invited” the contact from the supplier. Sometimes suppliers contend that an agreement is not an unsolicited consumer agreement (as a result of which there are no cooling off rights) because they say that their contact was at the invitation of the consumer.  This invitation might be artificially engineered in situations such as the following: A door to door salesperson attends a home uninvited and asks the home owner if they are interested in saving money by installing a solar PV system.  When the home owner says yes, the salesperson says that he has to meet a colleague and will have to come back, would it be ok if they meet at (say) 5pm.  if the owner has said yes, the seller might argue that the consumer invited the contact, as a result of which any agreement reached at the meeting is not an unsolicited consumer agreement; A telemarketer contacts a business offering a service.  If there is any interest, the telemarketer arranges a Zoom or in person meeting for later that day, again, the supplier argues that any agreement arising from the meeting is not an unsolicited consumer agreement because the consumer invited the contact. Because of the contention that the agreement is not unsolicited, the supplier does not include in the contract the required warnings and cooling off provisions, as a result of which the consumer is unaware that they might apply or would have applied. Whether the suppliers would be correct in alleging that agreements reached in those situations are not unsolicited consumer agreements (and accordingly have no cooling off rights) is at least debateable.  But the supplier’s argument would not exist if the arrangement was not made for a second meeting or call. Research is always advisable.  For information on door to door and telemarketing sales, see https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/telemarketing-and-door-to-door-sales