Siemens Ltd v Vaughan Constructions Pty Ltd - [2006] VSC 452

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 9599 of 2006

SIEMENS LIMITED	Plaintiff
v
VAUGHAN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Kaye J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 November 2006 (Further written submissions received 17 and 20 November 2006)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 November 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Siemens Ltd v Vaughan Constructions Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 452

---

BUILDING CONTRACTS – Claim for injunction to restrain enforcement of guarantee given under s.25(1)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 – Whether notice of dispute served on defendant commenced “other dispute resolution proceedings” under s.25(2) – Effect of notice being expressed to be “without prejudice” to rights under the contract and at law.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T.J. Margetts	Baker & McKenzie
For the Defendant	Mr M.A. Robins	Nathan Kuperholz

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Building and Construction Industry Security Payment Act 2002....................................... 2

Clause 25 of the Contract: Dispute Resolution........................................................................... 4

Submissions........................................................................................................................................ 5

The Notice of Dispute....................................................................................................................... 7

“Other Dispute Resolution Proceedings” – s.25(2) of the Act................................................... 8

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 14

HIS HONOUR:

In these proceedings the plaintiff claims an injunction to restrain the defendant from enforcing a bank guarantee for the sum of $271,813.41 issued in favour of the defendant by Citigroup on behalf of the plaintiff. The matter came before me in the Practice Court on an application by the plaintiff for an interlocutory injunction. However the factual issues in the case are not in dispute. The parties therefore agreed that the matter should proceed before me by way of the trial of the action. For that purpose I heard oral submissions, and gave the parties leave to file supplementary written submissions, which they have now done.

By an agreement in writing dated 30 June 2004 the defendant entered into a sub‑contract with the plaintiff to perform earthworks and main civil works in respect of the construction of a gas turbine power station at Laverton North. The contract price was approximately $11 million. On 30 August 2006 the defendant made progress claim No. 20 for payment of a sum of $403,820.21. The plaintiff responded by letter dated 19 September 2006 disputing that claim and stating that the scheduled amount which it proposed to pay was $94,326.51. Accordingly the defendant referred the dispute to adjudication pursuant to the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Victoria) (“the Act”). On 24 October 2006 the adjudicator, Mr S. Gunn, released his determination that the plaintiff was liable to pay the defendant $271,813.41 in respect to the progress claim No. 20, and that the date for payment of that sum was Tuesday, 31 October 2006.

On 31 October 2006 the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant, copied to the defendant’s solicitors, enclosing a Notice of Dispute and a bank guarantee for the adjudicated amount of $271,813.41. The letter stated:

“Pursuant to clause 25 of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Siemens Ltd v Vaughan Constructions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Siemens Ltd v Vaughan Constructions Pty Ltd [2006] VSC 452
Case: [2006] VSC 452
Decision Date: 29 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Siemens Ltd sought an injunction to prevent enforcement of a guarantee provided under section 25(1)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002, which was executed by Vaughan Constructions Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from a construction contract where Siemens, as the principal contractor, claimed that Vaughan, as the subcontractor, had not fulfilled its contractual obligations. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether an earlier notice of dispute served by Siemens initiated "other dispute resolution proceedings" as defined in section 25(2) of the Act. The crux of the legal issue was whether the notice, being marked "without prejudice" to Siemens' rights under the contract and at law, could still be considered as initiating dispute resolution proceedings under the Act.

The court examined the language of the notice and the implications of it being labelled "without prejudice." The term "without prejudice" typically indicates that the communication should not be used as evidence of an admission of liability and is often used in negotiations to encourage openness without fear of legal repercussions. The court considered whether this characterisation affected the notice's status under the Act, particularly in the context of initiating dispute resolution. Ultimately, the court held that the "without prejudice" label did not preclude the notice from serving as the commencement of dispute resolution proceedings. The court reasoned that the statutory framework of the Act was designed to facilitate timely and effective dispute resolution, and the "without prejudice" nature of the notice did not alter its substantive effect of initiating the dispute resolution process.

As a result, the court determined that Siemens' claim for an injunction was not justified. The notice served was deemed to have initiated dispute resolution proceedings, and thus Siemens' guarantee could not be enforced. The court did not grant the injunction Siemens sought, allowing Vaughan to proceed with enforcing the guarantee as provided for in the contract. The final orders reflect this decision, dismissing Siemens' application for an injunction and affirming the enforceability of the guarantee.

Orders