October 2019

In this issue, we look at a NSW Supreme Court decision in White Constructions Pty Ltd v PBS Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] which found that the claimant, despite using an expert programmer, failed to sufficiently prove that a delay by the respondent caused delay and loss to the entire project. Delays also feature in our examination of a recent target cost contract decision in the UK case of Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v ABC Electrification Ltd. In this case, a small change in the drafting of the contract had a significant impact on the financial outcomes for the parties. We discuss the benefits of ‘Framework Contracting’ in delivering infrastructure, the risks to an owner of refusing a builder the opportunity to rectify defective building work and the risks that contractors face should they incorrectly suspend works for non-payment or other issues.

In Case In Brief we look at C Spencer Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited which deals with how The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1998 applies to hybrid construction contracts.

We also look at the measures being taken by the Victorian State Government to address the cladding crisis that has been impacting the state’s construction industry. Further, we examine parent company guarantees in the oil and gas industry and the lessons that can be learnt from them.

  • Causation is king: NSW Supreme Court delivers hammer blow to programming analysis for delay claims
  •  The ‘collaborative’ future of construction and infrastructure
  • Oil & Gas: Unwitting ‘on-demand’ bond by guarantor
  • De-Cladding Victoria: Andrews Government announces new agency to address the combustible cladding crisis
  •  Case in Brief:
    C Spencer Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited
  • The builder’s right to fix
  • Target cost contracts – the devil’s in the detail
  • The legal minefield of wrongful suspension
Skip to content