• PRO
  • Events
  • About Blog Popular
  • Login
  • Register
  • PRO
  • Resources
    • Latest updates
    • Q&A
    • In-depth
    • In-house view
    • Practical resources
    • FromCounsel New
    • Commentary
  • Resources
  • Research
    • Legal research hub
    • Primary sources
    • Scanner: regulatory tracking
    • Lexy: powerful AI search
    • Research reports
    • Explore all
  • Research
  • Learn
    • All
    • Webinars
    • Videos
  • Learn
  • Experts
    • Find experts
    • Influencers
    • Client Choice New
    • Firms
    • About
    Introducing Instruct Counsel
    The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • Experts
  • My newsfeed
  • Events
  • About
  • Blog
  • Popular
  • Legal research hub
  • Primary sources
  • Scanner: regulatory tracking
  • Lexy: powerful AI search
  • Research reports
  • Explore all
  • Find experts
  • Influencers
  • Client Choice New
  • Firms
  • About
Introducing Instruct Counsel
The next generation search tool for finding the right lawyer for you.
  • Compare
  • Topics
  • Interviews
  • Guides

Analytics

Review your content's performance and reach.

  • Analytics dashboard
  • Top articles
  • Top authors
  • Who's reading?

Content Development

Become your target audience’s go-to resource for today’s hottest topics.

  • Trending Topics
  • Discover Content
  • Horizons
  • Ideation

Client Intelligence

Understand your clients’ strategies and the most pressing issues they are facing.

  • Track Sectors
  • Track Clients
  • Mandates
  • Discover Companies
  • Reports Centre

Competitor Intelligence

Keep a step ahead of your key competitors and benchmark against them.

  • Benchmarking
  • Competitor Mandates
Home

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact [email protected]

Register

Security in construction contracts – securing performance or guaranteeing misery?

McInnes Wilson Lawyers

To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .

Australia May 29 2014

Principals (or main contractors) often require the contractor performing the works to provide security in the form of unconditional bank guarantees, insurance bonds,  cash  retention or similar.

1

   They do so out of concern (or 

purported concern) that the other parties will not be able to complete what they have commenced and have been 

progressively paid for.

When the security provided is in the form of bank guarantees or other performance bonds, the principal will expect 

“a form as good as cash”

2

which means truly unconditional and payable on demand.

Many would say that providing security is simply a cost of doing business in the construction industry.  However, it 

is regularly provided by contractors without a real understanding of the risks involved.

An unfair or unexpected calling on the security can promptly lead to financial distress or failure.  

Preventing an unfair calling on the bond

In the case of unconditional performance bonds, preventing recourse can be very hard indeed.  

The bonds are “unconditional” after all.  The purpose of such bonds is essentially to “secure” timely and proper 

performance of the contractor’s obligations - often an express term of the contract.

3

  This seems fairly benign but 

can take on a harder edge.  That is, to allocate to the contractor the risk of being out of pocket pending resolution 

of a dispute.

The courts have found limited avenues for a contractor to intervene and restrain a principal from calling upon an 

unconditional  performance bond. Courts will grant an interlocutory injunction only where a contractor has 

established that: 

1. there is a serious question to be tried; 

2. if the injunction is not granted the contractor will suffer  loss, for which damages will be an inadequate 

remedy; and 

3. the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.

4

It is the first test that contractors often fall down on.  Given the commercial purpose of an unconditional bond, it can 

be hard to establish that there is even a serious question whether the principal can take the cash pending 

resolution of the dispute (leaving the contractor out of pocket).

                                                       

1

This article focuses on security provided by a contractor or subcontractor.  Although principals can, and often do, provide security, this is far 

less common.

2

Wood Hall Ltd v Pipeline Authority (1979) 141 CLR 443 at 457 (Stephen J). 

3

For example, Clause 5.1 of AS4300-1995.

4

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46.Page 2 of 5                                                                      www.mcw.com.au

©McInnes Wilson Lawyers 2014

Security in construction contracts – securing 

performance or guaranteeing misery? (cont.)

The limited circumstances under which an injunction might be granted are when:

5

1. there is a clear case of fraud by the principal;

2. the principal has engaged in unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (formerly the 

Trade Practices Act); or

3. the contract contains an express or implied promise from the principal not to call on the bond.

Outcomes are unpredictable

Of the avenues listed above, the only realistic one appears to be when there is an express or implied restriction 

from calling on the bond in the underlying contract.  Extreme commercial pressure, or unfairness, does not amount 

to fraud.  In addition, the courts have questioned the likelihood of unconscionable conduct applying in the absence 

of fraud.

6

    

It will always depend on the terms of the contract in question.  Slightly different wording, and slightly different 

surrounding facts, can lead to surprisingly different outcomes.  

The terms of the contract might not protect the contractor even when the words appear, at first blush, to do just 

that.  For example, in Redline Contracting v MCC Mining (Western Australia)

7

, the contractor sought to restrain the 

principal from cashing unconditional bonds after a notice of recourse was given.  Siopis J of the Federal Court 

considered the following wording in clause 5.2 of AS4000:

Security shall be subject to recourse by a party who remains unpaid after the time for payment where at 

least 5 days have elapsed since that party notified the other party of intention to have recourse. 

(Underlining added)

His Honour held that “remaining unpaid after the time for payment” did not mean that the debt had to be undisputed 

or finally determined.  Accordingly, no injunction was granted.

In other cases, where the wording was not much different, injunctions have been granted.  For example, in Lucas 

Stuart v Hemmes Hermitage

8

, the contractor successfully restrained the principal from calling on the bond.  The 

New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a clause which provided (among other things) that:

If the contractor has not materially complied with its obligations under this contract, the principal may give 

a written notice to the contractor … If the contractor fails to comply with the terms of the notice given … the 

principal may convert any unconditional undertaking into cash…

(Underlining added)

The Court held that the ability to cash the bond is conditioned upon the “objective fact” of non-compliance with a 

material obligation, not the principal’s bona fide belief of the non-compliance.

9

                                                       

5

Clough Engineering Ltd v Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd 29 ALR 458 at 477.

6

Clough, at 494.

7

[2011] FCA 1337.

8

[2010] NSWCA 283.

9

Lucas Stuart at [36] (Macfarlan JA).Page 3 of 5                                                                      www.mcw.com.au

©McInnes Wilson Lawyers 2014

Security in construction contracts – securing 

performance or guaranteeing misery? (cont.)

An even more “contractor-friendly” approach was taken in a recent ACT Supreme Court decision where the Court 

surprisingly granted an injunction to the contractor despite there being no express restriction in the contract.  In 

Walton Construction v Pines Living

10

,  the principal was restrained from calling upon the unconditional bank 

guarantees on the basis that the parties were engaged in a genuine dispute and contract did not expressly allocate 

the risk of security as the principal’s benefit until the dispute was resolved. 

This is in stark contrast to the approach taken in  Redline v MCC and the similar hard-line (arguably “principalfriendly”) approach taken in other cases.

11

It is perhaps also cause for concern for all principals whose contracts 

are based on or adopted from the PC-1 (2008) standard contracts and Department of Defence construction 

contracts.  These contracts contain no express provision dealing with recourse and (it can be presumed) were 

drafted on the basis of the cases that held that only very clear restrictions in the underlying contract are able to cut 

across the unconditional nature of performance bonds.  The decision in  Walton v Pines challenges this 

assumption.

12

Managing risk

With all of this unpredictability – from the contractor’s perspective, the safest approach is to insist on very clear

words to overcome the risk of an unwelcome calling on unconditional (“as good as cash”) performance bonds.

For example, consider provisions to the effect that the principal’s right to recourse only arises when:

■ either:

o the contractor is insolvent; or

o an undisputed debt is due from the contractor to the principal, and

■ the principal has given the contractor reasonable prior notice informing the contractor of its intention to call 

on the security. 

Statutory intervention in Queensland

Even if a contractor fails to negotiate adequate restrictions in its contract, not all hope is lost for contractors carrying 

out ‘building work’

13

in Queensland.  

The tentacles of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (QBCC Act) cut across 

freedom of contract and voluntary assumption of risk, in favour of vulnerable parties lower down the contracting 

chain.  

Section 67E of the QBCC Act provides that any term of a building contract which is inconsistent with a provision of 

Part 4A of the QBCC Act is void to the extent of the inconsistency.  This extends to a principal’s (or any superior 

contractor’s) ability to have recourse to security or retention.

                                                       

10

[2013] ACTSC 237.  

11

Including Clough; Redline v MCC; Ceresola AG v Thiess Pty Ltd & John Holland Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 115; Lucas Drilling Pty Ltd v Armour 

Energy Ltd [2013] QCA 111; Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd v Varnsdorf Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR 812.

12

For now at least, as an appeal has been filed against this decision.

13

As that term is defined in the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld). Page 4 of 5                                                                      www.mcw.com.au

©McInnes Wilson Lawyers 2014

Security in construction contracts – securing 

performance or guaranteeing misery? (cont.)

Section 67J (Part 4A) of the QBCC Act provides that:

(1) The contracting party for a building contract may use a security or retention amount, in whole or in part, 

to obtain an amount owed under the contract, only if the contracting party has given notice in writing to the 

contracted party advising of the proposed use and of the amount owed.

(2) The notice must be given within 28 days after the contracting party becomes aware, or ought 

reasonably to have become aware, of the contracting party’s right to obtain the amount owed.

This section ensures that a principal can only use the security to obtain an ‘amount owed’ under the contract. 

An ‘amount owed’ means a debt due under the contract.  

This statutory intervention was recently illustrated in the Queensland Supreme Court decision of  Beyfield v 

Northbuild Construction Sunshine Coast.

14

In Beyfield v Northbuild, the subcontractor entered into a subcontract with the builder to carry out mechanical works 

for the construction of a government project on Thursday Island.  The subcontractor provided the builder with two 

bank guarantees as security for the performance of its works.  Disputes arose and the builder gave notice to the 

subcontractor of its intention to call on the bank guarantees, alleging breaches of the subcontract that had resulted 

in the builder incurring costs which it claimed as damages.  Provisions of the subcontract gave the builder 

extremely broad rights to cash the bank guarantees "in respect of any claim to payment (liquidated or otherwise) 

the builder may have against the subcontractor under the subcontract or otherwise”.

The subcontractor applied to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining the builder from cashing the bank 

guarantees.

The Court held that:

■ section 67J of the QBCC Act restricted the operation of security or retention clauses to ‘debts due’;

■ that a party attempting to call on security or retention money under  a construction contract must strictly 

comply with section 67J of the QBCC Act (including the 28 day written notice requirement); and

■ the builder could not use the securities for its unliquidated claims.

Accordingly, the injunction was granted.  

Practical tips

For contractors (and subcontractors) seeking to prevent an “unfair” calling:

1. At the negotiation stage – seek advice to help you understand, negotiate and draft suitable protections in 

the contract that clearly provide when a principal can cash in the security.

2. Throughout the project  – if the relationship turns sour, seek urgent advice on your risks and options, 

including under what limited circumstances an injunction could be granted. 

                                                       

14

[2014] QSC 12.Page 5 of 5                                                                      www.mcw.com.au

©McInnes Wilson Lawyers 2014

Security in construction contracts – securing 

performance or guaranteeing misery? (cont.)

For principals seeking to preserve the “as good as cash” nature of security (if you intend it to operate that way):

1. At the negotiation stage – seek advice to make your contract very clearly preserve the unfettered right of 

recourse.

2. Throughout the project – if you are considering recourse, seek advice to help you: 

■ Assess the reasons for wanting to  have recourse to the security.   Consider any reasonable 

alternatives  – cashing security is a very serious step to take and can irreparably damage your 

commercial relationship.

■ Understand the procedural steps required under the contract.

■ If the QBCC Act applies, understand and comply with those additional hoops to ensure valid recourse. 

The contributions to this article by Katharine Chapman and Tim Sexton are gratefully acknowledged.

To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here.
McInnes Wilson Lawyers - Andrew Mewing and Michael Batch

Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Linked In
  • Follow
    Please login to follow content.
  • Like
  • Instruct

add to folder:

  • My saved (default)
  • Read later
Folders shared with you

Filed under

  • Australia
  • Construction
  • Litigation
  • McInnes Wilson Lawyers

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected].

Powered by Lexology

Related practical resources PRO

  • How-to guide How-to guide: How to draft and negotiate limitation of liability clauses (USA)
  • Checklist Checklist: What to consider when reviewing a confidentiality agreement (UK)
  • How-to guide How-to guide: Understanding key data protection definitions (UK)

Related research hubs

  • Australia
  • Construction
  • Litigation
Back to Top
Resources
  • Daily newsfeed
  • Commentary
  • Q&A
  • Research hubs
  • Learn
  • In-depth
  • Lexy: AI search
Experts
  • Find experts
  • Legal Influencers
  • Firms
  • About Instruct Counsel
More
  • About us
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
Legal
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
Contact
  • Contact
  • RSS feeds
  • Submissions
 
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn

© Copyright 2006 - 2022 Law Business Research

Law Business Research