Façade Treatment Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq) v Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2015 0026

FAÇADE TREATMENT ENGINEERING PTY LTD (IN LIQ)	Applicant
v
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ, TATE and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 September 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 October 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 247
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2015] VSC 41 (Vickery J)

---

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Right to progress payments in Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (‘BCISP Act’) s 9(1) – Reference to person who has undertaken ‘to carry out construction work’ or ‘supply related goods and services’ – Whether provisions available to companies in liquidation.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Scope of BCISP Act – Consideration of text, context and purpose of Act – Provisions of BCISP Act pt 3 not available to companies in liquidation.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Whether s 109 inconsistency arises between BCISP Act ss 16(2)(a)(i) and (4)(b) and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Corporations Act’) s 553C – Where s 553C provides for set-off of mutual dealings with insolvent company – Where BCISP Act provides for summary judgment proceeding that precludes reliance upon cross-claims or defences – If ss 16(2)(a)(i) and (4)(b) available to companies in liquidation, they would ‘alter, impair or detract from’ operation of s 553C.

CORPORATIONS LAW – Where Corporations Act s 553C(2) precludes set-off where person had notice of company’s insolvency at time of giving credit to or receiving credit from company – Mutual dealings pursuant to contract entered into prior to company’s insolvency – Whether date for assessing notice of insolvency is date of entry into contract or date of conduct pursuant to or in breach of contract.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Requirements for payment schedules under BCISP Act s 15 – Adequacy of reasons for withholding payment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr I W Upjohn QC with Mr B G Mason	Aitken Partners
For the Respondent	Mr D J Williams QC with Mr M G Roberts QC	Norton Rose Fulbright

WARREN CJ
TATE JA
McLEISH JA:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Facts ................................................................................................................................	2
Legislative provisions ………………………………………………………………..	9
The BCISP Act ……………………………………………………………….	9
The Corporations Act ……………...………………………………………..	16
The trial judge’s reasons …..........................................................................................	17
Grounds of appeal and notice of contention ............................................................	20
The scope of the BCISP Act — the notice of contention .........................................	21
Parties’ submissions ………………………………………………………..	22
Analysis ............................................................................................................	25
Federal jurisdiction and s 79 of the Judiciary Act ………………………	35
The constitutional point — s 109 inconsistency ....................................................	37
The judge’s reasons for finding a constitutional inconsistency ………	39
Are s 16(2)(a)(i) and s 16 (4)(b) of the BCISP Act inconsistent with s 553C of the Corporations Act? ……...........................................................	47
Façade’s approach: BCISP Act restrictions are procedural and interim	47
Façade’s approach: concurrent operation — Veolia …………………..	50
Finding of s 109 inconsistency with Trade Practices Act — Bitannia	53
Security of Payments legislation and insolvency — Grosvenor & Hamersley Iron ………………………………………………………..	60
Automatic application of s 553C…