Australia: Corrs High Vis: Episode 24 – Australian security of payment legislation – High Court guidance

In our latest Corrs High Vis podcast, we look at two important High Court rulings which provide greater clarity in relation to Australia's security of payment legislation.

The first sets out the scope of review from an adjudicator's determination, while the second provides guidance on when a payment clause will be a prohibited 'pay when paid' clause. Wayne Jocic, Samuel Woff and Todd Spiller consider the implications. The podcast series, brought to you by Corrs, offers analysis and insights to help you make smarter decisions.

The podcast series, brought to you by the Corrs Construction team, offers analysis and insights to help you make smarter decisions.


Samuel Woff: Commentator, Senior Associate at Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Wayne Jocic: Melbourne University Senior Lecturer and Co-Director of Studies in Construction Law

Todd Spiller: Corrs Chambers Westgarth – Senior Associate, Brisbane

SAMUEL: Hello. My name is Samuel Woff, Senior Associate at Corrs Chambers Westgarth and you're listening to Corrs High Vis.

In two important rulings handed down recently the High Court has done two things construction professionals have been waiting on for a while: first, it clarified the scope of review from an adjudicator's determination; second, it has provided guidance on when a payment clause will be a prohibited pay when paid clause. To unpack these decisions and what they mean for our listeners, I'm joined by Wayne Jocic, Co-Director of Construction Law Studies at Melbourne University, and Todd Spiller, Senior Associate from our Brisbane office. Thanks for joining me guys.

In the first decision, Probuild Constructions and Shade Systems, it was alleged the adjudicator made an error in interpreting a liquidated damages clause. Now putting aside for a second the question of whether or not an error was in fact made, the more important question for the High Court was: "What are we going to do about it? Can this be reviewed in any case?". The High Court held, in general errors were not able to be reviewed because the efficient flow of cash through the contractual chain would be blocked whilst applications for review were being held. I say "in general" and of course there are a narrow range of circumstances where review will still be possible but these generally will not be applicable to the majority of cases. So the High Court's decision does provide some clarity, though this may be a small comfort if you're on the wrong side of a losing determination.

Wayne, I know you know a little bit about this so would you mind giving us your views?

WAYNE: Yes. Look, I think it's really easy to get lost in these cases: there are two of them; we know there are security of payment decisions all the time. But I think we can really draw these twin decisions down to two really important points. Now the first one is this question: "Can you appeal from an adjudication". And you'd think the answer would be fairly clear but it's taken us a long time to get High Court guidance on this and the practical answer is: you probably can't, provided the adjudicator has behaved even vaguely sensibly; they've been properly appointed; there's a construction contract. All those basic, essential requirements of the adjudicator to be able to do their job. If they've done that, then you're probably not going to be successful in seeking court intervention, at least until you get to resolving the dispute ultimately under the construction contract. So that I think is the main thing. That's the headline observation that a lot of people are talking about and that's an important one but there's a bit more to say about it later.

The second thing is really quite a compelling reminder. So a lot of us know that security of payment legislation prohibits these pay when paid – these pay if paid clauses. So that you can't make payments, say under a subcontract, contingent on the contractor being paid under the head contract. So we know that the trouble is this decision has reminded us that that goes quite far. So if you are dealing with the subcontract, if you're dealing with one that has back to back obligations, the decision in Maxcon is actually some cause for concern. And that's because if you're trying to avoid inconsistent obligations you might be doing things like having linked claims. You might have provisions that say that determinations that are made under the head contract also apply in the subcontract. You might say that things like a certificate of occupancy under the head contract trigger final payments under the subcontract; and all of those things now are in potential doubt. That they might in effect be pay when paid provisions. So they're the two things I would say: one about whether you can appeal, the short answer is "it's going to be harder than ever"; and then the second one, this reminder that the pay when paid prohibition can really bite.

SAMUEL: I think there are four comments that I'd like to make in relation to that introduction, Wayne, mainly around the first part of the High Court's conclusion. The first thing being that even though the High Court has now drawn the distinction between the basic and fundamental things which you need to get right in an adjudication which, if you do, the rest of the decision is going to be untouchable. The battleground's major shift to whether or not one of those basic and fundamental things has been breached. There's no bright line distinction between when an adjudicator has acted sensibly and within their power versus when they've gone outside their power and breached one of those basic requirements. So I expect there to be some – more litigation as we sort of settle the parameters there.

The second thing is that the High Court emphasise in their decision that one of the reasons why you can't get an appeal or a review of these – for lack of a better way of saying it – more minor errors, even though they might involve a lot of money, is because you can still at the end of the project go to Court as per normal and have these matters dealt before a judge per the normal litigation process or through arbitration or however you've set up the contract. The reality is that there's going to be a certain class of claims where it's simply not economically viable to chase the money in that fashion and so for all intents and purposes the adjudicator's decision on those sorts of more minor amounts is going to be final.

That then leads to the sort of unusual conclusion where you might have an adjudicator's determination – this is the third point – which is for, let's say $500,000, which is a lot of money to make an adjudication on in a very compressed timeframe of only ten days which, for all intents and purposes, is final. And that's quite – that would make it quite a unique and almost remarkable feature of our Australian ecosystem which – legal ecosystem which usually has more checks and balances than nothing for amounts in dispute of that amount.

And the final point to make is that even though many of the eastern seaboard states have enacted similar security of payment legislation, it's to be borne in mind that this decision related to the New South Wales legislation and at least in Victoria there's – without going into the detail – there are unique constitutional provisions in the Victorian constitution which mean that the High Court's reasoning is going to have fairly limited application here in Victoria and so that probably needs to be borne in mind by Victorian building practitioners as they sort of digest the decision. Things in Victoria are a little bit unique. And that actually segues well, Todd, to you up in Queensland. We understand that you've had a look at this and have some comments to make as well from a Queensland perspective.

TODD: Thanks, Sam. In short, the decision in Probuild doesn't fundamentally change the position in Queensland. It simply fortifies the position as it was generally understood that an adjudication decision can only be impugned on the basis of jurisdictional error. The longer answer is this, and it probably requires us to briefly address a quirk of legislative intervention in Queensland, for a long time the proposition arising from the case law in Queensland has been an adjudication application under the [Besive] Act, if I can call it that, may be successfully attacked for jurisdictional error. Now that proposition has an interesting history. You see when the [Besive] Act was introduced, decisions of adjudicators were held to be reviewable under the JRA, the Judicial Review Act. However, in 2007 the JRA was amended with the intention that a provision to the effect that adjudication decisions made under the [Besive] Act were excluded from review under the procedures contained in the JRA. That intention did not hold for long, however. In Kirk and Industrial Court of New South Wales, which was decided in 2011, the High Court held that legislation could deny the availability of relief on non-jurisdictional error of law but that legislation which sought to take away from the State Supreme Court's power to grant relief on account of jurisdictional error was beyond power. Put simply, adjudication decisions could be set aside on the grounds of jurisdictional error but not a non-jurisdictional error of law. However, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court remained. For those that are interested in Queensland, this position was confirmed following Kirk in a decision of Justice White, Northbuild Construction and Central Interior Linings.

So as I said, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court remained but the boundaries of judicial review had not been firmly determined in Queensland and, look, it remained possible or, I suppose, as least faintly arguable, that a decision could be challenged on the basis of an error of law on the face of the record based on an order in the nature of certiorari. Although I should note that the prospects of that were dim, given that there had been decisions to the effect that such errors within jurisdiction were not reviewable. So that was the position. But following the decision in Probuild, we think the position is clear. Queensland courts do not have jurisdiction to quash adjudication determinations for non-jurisdictional error. The purpose of the Queensland legislation is materially the same as New South Wales. Interim and speedy adjudication is designed to, in effect, protect cash flow. And as result, the reasoning of the High Court is applicable. In the absence of the High Court and, I suppose, the Court of Appeal authority in Probuild, it would have been interesting to observe the implication of the decision at first instance on the conduct of parties in Queensland. At first instance in Probuild, it was relevant to Justice Emmett that there was nothing in the New South Wales legislation which contained the Court and no legislative intention to exclude the availability of judicial review in the case of non-jurisdictional error on the face of the record. But in Queensland the amendment to the Judicial Review Act and the decision in Kirk which I described earlier, arguably put the position beyond doubt. In any event, we are where we are with the High Court decision in Probuild and the position is now, I suppose, that the parties are left in Queensland to identify jurisdictional errors or breaches of natural justice if they wish to overturn an adjudication decision. The boundaries of course of jurisdictional error will still be disputed and, look, it would be unsurprising to hear further from Corrs High Vis as cases emerge where those boundaries and those very questions are in issue.

SAMUEL: Thanks for that, Todd. That's a helpful insight. We might just wrap up now. Wayne, I know you had some final thoughts that you wanted to convey.

WAYNE: Yes, look, I think these are cases that you could look at in a Twitter feed and say "yes, got it". But the reality is both of these cases raise some ongoing questions. One of those things is what is a jurisdictional error. And we've got guidance on that in New South Wales in particular, going back through old cases like Chase Oyster Bar, like Broden, and it's just not easy to say "there's going to be more litigation about that". One of the other concerns that we've said is the scope of the prohibition on pay when paid clauses. And the other thing that we haven't mentioned so far is that we know that the Murray review has taken place; we don't know what he's reported, we don't know what the governments will do in response to that and so that's one of the big unresolved questions for 2018.

SAMUEL: And that's all for today's podcast. We here at Corrs will certainly be keeping a close eye on how this decision is applied going forward and should you have any queries please don't hesitate to be in contact with someone from our team.

This podcast is for reference purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should always obtain legal advice for your specific circumstances.

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

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

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
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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