News & Insights

The commercial record.

Commentary and analysis on Security of Payment, delay and EOT claims, variations, quantum, and the commercial mechanics of Australian construction.

Fig. 09 — 25 entriesRICS-Regulated

Two overlapping delay bars colliding on a programme, representing concurrent delay

Article · 31 Aug 2026 · 6 min

Concurrent Delay: Who Bears the Cost When Two Delays Collide

When a principal-risk delay and a contractor-risk delay overlap, who pays? Australia has no apex authority, the SCL Protocol calls true concurrency rare, and the practical default is time-not-money. What the cases actually say, what AS 4000 does about it, and the records that decide it.

A matrix of delay analysis methods with one selected based on project records

Article · 26 Aug 2026 · 5 min

Choosing a Delay Analysis Method: A Practical Guide to the SCL Protocol Options in Australia

The SCL Protocol lists six delay analysis methods; Australian courts have made clear none has automatic standing. The real selection criteria — records, timing, forum and the question being asked — plus the lessons of White Constructions and Santos v Fluor on what survives scrutiny.

Abstract graphic of a completion date dissolving when the principal blocks the contractor's path

Article · 24 Aug 2026 · 6 min

The Prevention Principle and 'Time at Large': What They Actually Mean in Australia

Contractors invoke the prevention principle whenever the principal causes delay; it rarely rescues them. The Australian position: an unused EOT mechanism defeats the argument, Gaymark is an outlier, and clear words can exclude the principle altogether. What 'time at large' really means — and costs.

Two documents and two clocks representing the AS 4000 clause 34 notice and claim obligations

Article · 19 Aug 2026 · 6 min

Extension of Time Under AS 4000: Getting Clause 34 Right

AS 4000's clause 34 is the most administered EOT regime in Australian contracting and one of the most misunderstood: the cl 34.2 notice and cl 34.3 claim are different obligations, the superintendent has 28 days before a deemed EOT arises, and amendments change everything. A working guide.

Abstract graphic of the Victorian security of payment regime being rebuilt, with old exclusions removed

Article · 17 Aug 2026 · 6 min

Victoria's Security of Payment Reset: What the April 2026 Reforms Mean for Your Next Claim

From 15 April 2026, Victoria's security of payment regime was rebuilt: excluded amounts and claimable variations abolished, monthly claim entitlement, a 20-business-day payment cap, unfair time bars declarable under s 13A, and a statutory performance security regime — applying to existing contracts.

Four state outlines with differing clock faces, representing Australia's divergent security of payment regimes

Article · 12 Aug 2026 · 7 min

Security of Payment Across Australia: NSW, Queensland, Victoria and WA Compared

Every state promises 'pay now, argue later' — then implements it differently. Payment claim timing, schedule deadlines, due-date caps, adjudication windows and the December pauses for NSW, Queensland, Victoria and WA, compared in one place for teams working across borders.

Stylised timeline of the NSW adjudication process from payment claim to determination

Article · 10 Aug 2026 · 6 min

Adjudication Under NSW SOPA, Step by Step: From Payment Claim to Determination

The three s 17 pathways and their exact deadlines, the s 17(2) notice trap, what goes in the application, the respondent's response window, determination and enforcement — the complete NSW adjudication sequence with the business-day rules that decide it.

A payment schedule document marked up as a route map, representing the recovery roadmap concept

Article · 5 Aug 2026 · 5 min

How to Respond to a Payment Claim in NSW: The Payment Schedule Is Your Recovery Roadmap

A payment schedule is not just a number — it is the roadmap for the dispute that may follow. The NSW requirements, the 24–48 hour triage that should happen on receipt of every claim, a six-category framework for deductions, and the s 20(2B) rule that locks in your reasons.

Checklist over a payment claim document, representing NSW SOPA validity requirements

Article · 3 Aug 2026 · 6 min

What Makes a Payment Claim Valid Under NSW SOPA: A Practitioner's Checklist

Identification of the work, the claimed amount, the 'made under the Act' statement, timing, the one-claim-per-month rule, the supporting statement: the validity elements of a NSW payment claim, the traps that kill claims before the merits, and how to audit yours before serving.

Abstract graphic of an adjudicated payment held in suspension between two parties, representing a stay of enforcement

Case study · 29 Jul 2026 · 5 min

Taringa v Kenik: When Courts Will Stay an Adjudication Award Over Claimant Insolvency Risk

In Taringa Property Group v Kenik [2024] QSC 327, Queensland stayed enforcement of a $4.2M adjudication award because the claimant's finances made repayment unlikely — the first such stay against a claimant not in liquidation. The builder was wound up weeks later. A playbook for both sides.

Abstract graphic of a gate closing on a delay claim despite the delay being real

Case study · 27 Jul 2026 · 5 min

CMA Assets v John Holland: The Harsh Time-Bar Decision Commercial Teams Should Re-Read Annually

In CMA Assets v John Holland [No 6] [2015] WASC 217, a subcontractor's delay claims failed for non-compliant notices even though the court found the head contractor caused delay — and the clause excluding the prevention principle was upheld. The defining Australian lesson in notice discipline.

Abstract graphic of a calendar date as the foundation stone under a payment claim document

Case study · 22 Jul 2026 · 5 min

Southern Han: The Reference Date Rule Every Payment Claim Still Lives By

Southern Han v Lewence [2016] HCA 52 held that a reference date is a precondition to a valid NSW payment claim — and termination can stop new ones arising. The 2019 amendments reversed parts of it for newer contracts, but the validity discipline it teaches still decides adjudications.

Abstract graphic of a valuation being pulled back inside the boundary of the contract price

Case study · 20 Jul 2026 · 5 min

Mann v Paterson: The High Court Reins In Quantum Meruit

In Mann v Paterson Constructions [2019] HCA 32, the High Court ended the 'generous quantum meruit' after repudiation: no restitution for completed stages, and the contract price effectively caps the rest. What it means for valuing terminated work and documenting variations.

Abstract graphic of two competing delay analyses set aside in favour of a site diary

Case study · 15 Jul 2026 · 5 min

White Constructions v PBS Holdings: The Day the Court Rejected Both Delay Experts

In White Constructions v PBS Holdings [2019] NSWSC 1166, the court rejected both parties' delay analyses — windows and collapsed as-built alike — and decided causation on the site records. Still the most important Australian delay-methodology decision, and the reason your site diary matters.

Abstract graphic of a decision path departing from the two parties' submissions, representing the A-Civil v Ceerose procedural fairness case

Case study · 13 Jul 2026 · 5 min

A-Civil v Ceerose: When the Adjudicator Goes Off-Script

In A-Civil v Ceerose [2024] NSWCA 7, an adjudicator decided a $115K retention claim on reasoning neither party advanced. The NSWCA upheld the partial setting aside for denial of procedural fairness — a rare successful challenge with lessons for adjudicators, claimants and respondents alike.

Abstract graphic of a second attempt at the same door being barred, representing the Kwik Flo abuse of process decision

Case study · 1 Jul 2026 · 5 min

Kwik Flo: No Second Bite at Adjudication

In Kwik Flo v SE Ware Street Dev [2026] NSWCA 9, a claimant who lost on jurisdiction before one adjudicator obtained $1.2M from a second. The Court of Appeal held the first ruling was a 'determination' and the re-run an abuse of process. The remedy is judicial review — not forum shopping.

Abstract graphic of notice documents with one missing element highlighted, representing the Rimfire extension of time decision

Case study · 29 Jun 2026 · 5 min

Rimfire Energy: 865 Days of EOT Lost to Defective Notices

In Rimfire Energy v BSF Co (No 2) [2025] FCA 384, six extension-of-time claims totalling 865 days all failed: none addressed the requirement that the delay wasn't caused by the claiming party. The result was full delay damages. A precise lesson in notice content for every EOT regime.

Abstract graphic of a one-dollar coin failing to cap a rising column of delay costs

Case study · 24 Jun 2026 · 5 min

Carbone v Fowler Homes: Why '$1 a Day' Liquidated Damages Don't Cap Your Delay Liability

In Carbone v Fowler Homes [2024] NSWCA 192, a builder argued nominal liquidated damages were the owner's entire remedy for 21 months of delay. The Court of Appeal disagreed: without clear words, a token LD rate leaves general damages at large. The drafting lesson cuts both ways.

Abstract graphic of a complex programme of works under judicial scrutiny, representing the Santos v Fluor GLNG dispute

Case study · 22 Jun 2026 · 5 min

Santos v Fluor: $692M and a Masterclass in How Courts Test Delay Analysis

Santos v Fluor [2025] QSC 184 adopted a three-referee report and ordered roughly $692M paid on the GLNG cost-reimbursable dispute. Inside it: the standard for adopting referee reports, and a sharp lesson in delay-analysis method discipline. An appeal is pending.

Abstract graphic of sunk project costs being recovered after a contract termination, representing the Cessnock decision

Case study · 17 Jun 2026 · 5 min

Cessnock in the High Court: Recovering Wasted Expenditure When Expectation Loss Can't Be Proved

In Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 17, the High Court allowed a company to recover $3.7M spent building an airport hangar after the council repudiated. The 'fair wind' principle for wasted expenditure matters to every terminated construction project.

Abstract graphic of funds flowing back from a called bank guarantee through an adjudication channel

Case study · 15 Jun 2026 · 5 min

EnerMech v Acciona: Clawing Back a Called Bank Guarantee Through SOPA

In EnerMech v Acciona [2024] NSWCA 162, a subcontractor used a SOPA payment claim to recover $9.2M in cashed bank guarantee proceeds — and the Court of Appeal upheld it. Calling security no longer guarantees holding the cash. What both sides of the recourse decision need to know.

Stylised clock face past 5pm over a calendar, representing deemed service clauses and security of payment deadlines

Case study · 10 Jun 2026 · 5 min

Roberts Co v Sharvain: The $3.2M Deeming Clause That Couldn't Stop the SOPA Clock

In Roberts Co v Sharvain Facades [2025] NSWCA 161, a head contractor's payment schedule was three days late because it relied on a contractual deemed-service clause. The NSW Court of Appeal confirmed the SOPA clock runs from actual service. The cost: judgment for the full $3.2M claim.

Abstract graphic of a dispute splitting into apportioned shares inside an arbitration frame, representing the Tesseract decision

Case study · 8 Jun 2026 · 5 min

Tesseract: Proportionate Liability Now Follows You Into Arbitration

In Tesseract International v Pascale Construction [2024] HCA 24, the High Court held proportionate liability statutes apply in domestic commercial arbitration. Claimants can now be left chasing absent wrongdoers in court; respondents gain a powerful defence. Arbitration clauses need rereading.

Abstract diagram of liability concentrating at the top of a building structure, representing the Pafburn non-delegable duty decision

Case study · 3 Jun 2026 · 6 min

Pafburn in the High Court: The Non-Delegable Duty That Reshaped NSW Defect Claims

In Pafburn v The Owners – Strata Plan No 84674 [2024] HCA 49, the High Court held that the statutory duty of care under the NSW Design and Building Practitioners Act cannot be apportioned away. What that means for developers, head contractors and their subcontract chains.

Stylised hourglass over a contract page, representing construction contract time bars

Article · 1 Jun 2026 · 8 min

Time Bars and Condition-Precedent Notices: Why Courts Enforce Them and How Not to Lose Your Claim

A valid claim served one day late can be worth nothing. Australian courts consistently enforce time bars and condition-precedent notices as written. Here is why they do it, where the narrow escape routes lie, and the notice discipline that keeps entitlement alive.

The record, delivered

The analysis, before you need it.

Commentary on Security of Payment, delay, variations and quantum — direct to your inbox as it's published. Unsubscribe any time.