Building, payment and company disputes
Barrister at the Victorian Bar. My practice is building and construction, security of payment, building product liability and class actions, owners corporations and Corporations Act disputes. I appear as counsel and I mediate as an AMDRAS Accredited Mediator.
Brief me through my clerk, Chris Chapman of Chapman's List, on (03) 9225 7666 or [email protected].
Topics
- Security of payment54 notes
Decisions on payment claims, adjudication and enforcement under the security of payment legislation, with the Victorian Act in focus.
- Building and construction contracts32 notes
Decisions on termination, variations, delay and payment under construction contracts.
- Proportionate liability3 notes
Decisions on apportionable claims, concurrent wrongdoers and non-delegable duties.
- Owners corporations14 notes
Decisions on owners corporations, common property, defects and governance.
- Oppression and directors' duties24 notes
Decisions on oppression remedies, share valuation and directors' duties.
- Commercial arbitration law9 notes
Court decisions on the commercial arbitration Acts: challenges to awards, the limits of an arbitral tribunal's authority and the courts' supervisory role.
- Contracts and commercial disputes37 notes
Decisions on contract formation, construction and remedies, and on the settlement of commercial disputes.
- Class actions8 notes
Decisions on representative and group proceedings, including funding orders and the requirements for commencing them.
- Insolvency and external administration16 notes
Decisions on receivers, liquidators, insolvent trading and the recovery of company property and records.
Recent case notes
- Reward Interiors Pty Ltd t/as Reward Group v Tackelly No 8 Pty Ltd atf Tackelly No 8 Trust [2026] NSWCA 133
In July 2026 the New South Wales Court of Appeal held unanimously that section 42(3) of the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2021 (WA), which requires a party applying for adjudication review to give the other party a copy of the application within one business day, is a jurisdictional requirement. By majority (Free JA and McHugh JA, Ward P dissenting on that question and in the result), the court also held that emailing a link to the application documents held in an online repository did not give them "by email" under section 113(3)(d) of that Act, so the review adjudicator lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was allowed.
- 1559 High Street Pty Ltd v Camillo Builders Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 129
In the version the Court applied, sections 28M, 28O and 28R of the Victorian security of payment Act are not inconsistent with the Australian Consumer Law, so a principal whose claim of misleading conduct goes only to final entitlements must pay the adjudicated amount (subject to any stay of execution) and pursue that claim separately.
- Create Environment Pty Ltd v Renex Founder Hold Co Pty Ltd [2026] VSCA 103
In an oppression proceeding under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Victorian Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from a trial judge's refusal to adjust a buy-out price for payments that the applicant first relied on for that purpose in closing submissions, without pleading that use.
- Kwik Flo Pty Ltd v SE Ware Street Dev Pty Ltd [2026] NSWCA 9
In February 2026 the New South Wales Court of Appeal, applying the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), held that an adjudicator's decision that he lacked jurisdiction, made after the period for an adjudication response had ended and after he had considered both parties' material, was a "determination" for the purposes of the Act. It also found no error in the primary judge's conclusion that the claimant's fresh application to a second adjudicator was an abuse of process, and dismissed the claimant's appeal with costs.
- E&P Investments Ltd v Keybridge Capital Ltd [2026] VSCA 5
The Victorian Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed an appeal against an order setting aside a statutory demand, holding that evidence of a unit holder's loss on the conversion of its units, without more, did not show an offsetting claim for breach of the duty under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to treat classes of members fairly.
- Kaloriziko Pty Ltd v Calibre Construction Group Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWCA 259
In December 2025 the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that a developer's approval of a builder's claim for work within the contract scope did not make that work a variation, or displace a clause providing that payments other than the final payment were payments on account only. The developer obtained a credit for an approved claim for consultants' fees, but not for five paid claims, which were for excluded items that the builder was entitled to be paid for separately. The court also held that the date for practical completion had not been varied, so that liquidated damages of $210,000 were due. Where the builder had released parties whose liability was coordinate with the developer's in return for a sale of property to a company related to the builder at an undervalue, the developer's liability was reduced by the whole of the undervalue, because the builder had not proved that any part of the benefit related to something else. The appeal was allowed and judgment entered for the developer.