Constructpro Pty Ltd v Maicome Pty Ltd

Constructpro Pty Ltd brought an action against Maicome Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Victoria regarding a dispute over variations made to a building contract. Constructpro, the sub-contractor, alleged that Maicome, the principal contractor, failed to pay for variations classified as “second class”. The dispute centred around whether these variations were claimable and whether the contract provided an adequate method for resolving such disputes.

The court needed to decide if the variations could be classified as “second class” under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) and whether the contract provided a method for resolving disputes as required by section 10A(3)(d)(ii) of the Act. The court also considered the implications of Siemens Ltd v Vaughan Constructions Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 452 (Kaye J) on the interpretation of similar contractual provisions.

The court found that the variations in question did not qualify as “second class” variations, as the contract did not provide a method for resolving such disputes. The reasoning was based on the statutory requirement for a method of resolving disputes, which was not met by the contract in question. The court also found that the provisions of Siemens Ltd v Vaughan Constructions Pty Ltd were applicable, reinforcing the need for a clear method of dispute resolution in the contract.

The court ruled in favour of Maicome Pty Ltd, dismissing Constructpro Pty Ltd’s claim for payment of the variations. The court held that, as the contract did not provide a method for resolving disputes over variations, Constructpro Pty Ltd’s claim was not valid under the Act.