主な取り扱い分野
-
Corporate and Commercial Disputes
-
Director’s Duties Disputes
-
Shareholders, Partnership & Joint Venture Disputes
-
Real Estate Disputes
-
Bankruptcy, Financial Restructuring & Insolvency Disputes
-
Registration & Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
-
Arbitration
-
Defamation
-
IP Disputes & Enforcement
-
Tax Disputes
-
Workplace & Employment Litigation
Professionals
コラム
MORE >
Dispute Resolution & Litigation
Directors’ Duties: Lessons from Recent Case Law
Australia is often viewed as one of the most heavily regulated jurisdictions in the area of corporate governance. On the one hand, it reflects a strong commitment to transparency, accountability and the protection of stakeholders’ interest, but on the other hand it poses a challenge for those looking to navigate the corporate regulatory landscape – all the more so for those not familiar with the Australian framework. When an offshore investor sets up shop in Australia or acquires a local company, often the first step taken is the appointment of a new director. Their role is not merely symbolic or perfunctory – the law imposes extensive duties on company directors, many of which are codified in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). Directors owe a fiduciary duty to their company, meaning that they are required to act in good faith in the best interests of the company, exercise due care and diligence, and not misuse their position or information obtained by reason of their position. Recent judicial decisions, such as the New South Wales Court of Appeal’s ruling in Sunnya Pty Ltd v He [2025] NSWCA 79 (Sunnya decision), have further cemented the expansiveness of the scope of these obligations. Below, we discuss some of the issues canvassed in the Sunnya decision, following which we go over some of directors’ key duties in greater detail. Enduring nature of a director’s fiduciary duty In the recent Sunnya decision, the Court was asked to consider the temporal reach of a director’s fiduciary duty, and whether they bind a director even after their resignation from office. In the Sunnya decision, two former directors, Mr He and Ms Lu, were found to be in contravention of their fiduciary duties to Sunnya Pty Ltd (Sunnya). Sunnya’s business involved the export and sale of Australian and New Zealand manufactured milk powder products under the brand ‘Neurio’ to the Chinese market through distribution companies GABT and GNT, both owned by the former directors or their family members. Notably, Sunnya owned the Neurio trademark in Australia whilst GABT owned the trademark in China. After selling a majority stake in Sunnya to a third-party investor, Mr He allegedly attempted to transfer the Australian Neurio trademark from Sunnya to GABT without informing the other directors. After this effort failed, Mr He and Ms Lu resigned before registering a new trademark, NRIO, under GABT to continue selling the same product without interference from Sunnya. The Court found that the former directors had breached their fiduciary duties to Sunnya in attempting to transfer the trademarks and selling identical products, despite this occurring after their resignation. The two former directors were ordered to pay compensation to Sunnya in an amount to be determined for the loss suffered by the company or the benefit gained from their illicit act. Overall, the Court’s ruling made evident the fact that directors cannot evade their obligations by simply resigning. Care and diligence (section 180) Section 180 of the Act imposes a duty on directors to exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a reasonable degree of care and diligence. This is assessed on an objective standard, and courts will consider what a reasonable person would have done in the director’s position. A recent example of a judicial ruling on this provision can be found in ASIC v Holista Colltech Ltd [2024] FCA 244. In this case, the Federal Court found that the managing director and CEO of Holista Colltech Ltd (Holista), Dr Marnickavasagar, breached this s180 duty. In 2020, Dr Marnickavasagar authorised Holista to provide misleading representations and false information to ASIC regarding the sales figures of a sanitiser product, Natshield, that the company claimed to be effective against COVID-19. In these representations, Holista claimed that a third-party buyer had placed an order for 415,000 bottles of sanitiser with a projected revenue of $3.8 million, which had the effect of inflating the company’s share price. In reality, no such order had been made, and the company subsequently issued an announcement stating (again, falsely) that quarantine measures had disrupted supply networks, with projected sales having to be scaled back. Holista had a $1.8 million penalty imposed on them for breach of their continuous disclosure obligations and for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. Separately, the Court found Dr Marnickavasagar to be personally liable, on account of his contravention of s180 by causing or permitting Holista to breach the Act. The Court imposed a penalty of $150,000 and disqualified him from managing corporations for four years. Not only that, he had a costs order for $200,000 against him on account of ASIC’s legal costs in the proceedings. The case highlights how directors can be held personally liable for failing to exercise appropriate care and diligence, particularly where their actions result in regulatory breaches by and/or harm to the company. Non-Financial Risk and Emerging Obligations Some recent high-profile cases alleging failure to comply with s180 have included allegations about oversight of a company's non-financial risks. This trend is expected to continue, with increasing obligations on companies in key ESG (environmental, social, and governance) aspects such as climate emissions disclosure and transition management, cyber security risk management, and modern slavery reporting. Directors would do well to be cognisant that their duty of care and diligence necessarily evolves with the times, and will increasingly extend to the oversight of these non-financial risks, with regulatory scrutiny in these areas only set to intensify. Good Faith and Proper Purpose (section 181) Section 181 requires directors to act in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose. In the Sunnya decision, it was found that the directors’ practice was to cause Sunnya to issue fraudulent invoices to evade import duties. The Court determined this practice was in breach of s181. The Court further held that a contravention would have occurred even if no improper purpose was actually achieved or if the improper conduct was intended to benefit the company – unlawful conduct could never be in the company’s best interests. This is the case even if a director honestly believes their conduct is in the best interests of the company – such belief must first be rational. Misuse of Position (section 182) Section 182 prohibits directors from improperly using their position to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else, or to cause detriment to the company. In the Sunnya decision, Mr He and Ms Lu was found to have adopted the practice of “under-value sales” during their tenure as directors. The practice involved Sunnya being made to sell Neurio products to GNT at low “export prices” for GNT to on-sell to other distributors. The Court found that both the under-value sales practice and the fraudulent commercial invoicing practice described above amounted to contraventions of s182. Specifically, the under-value sales practice was found to be in breach of the s182 as it was immediately financially disadvantageous to Sunnya and diverted financial benefits to another company owned by the former directors’ families. Directors ought to think twice before using their positions for illegitimate or self-serving purposes. Misuse of Information (section 183) Section 183 prohibits the misuse of information obtained as a director or other officer of a company. Directors must not use confidential or sensitive information acquired through their position to gain an advantage or cause detriment to the company, even after they have left office. Recently, the Western Australia Court of Appeal upheld the Supreme Court’s finding in Chaffey Services Pty Ltd v Doble (No 4) [2023] WASC 361 that related to a breach of s183. In this case, Mr Doble was employed as a supervising officer by Chafco Pty Ltd to oversee the maintenance of a mine site. During his employment, he used confidential information regarding the site to secure early finances for his own company, Kirahnley Pty Ltd, and to later acquire a contract for rehabilitation of the site from the landowner. The Court ordered the recovery of profits made from the misuse, emphasising that the information need not be inherently valuable for damages to be awarded. Although the case at hand involves a supervising officer, the provision of the Act equally extends to directors. Director’s Personal Liability As we have demonstrated above, directors who breach their duties under sections 180 to 183 will be personally liable for their contraventions, often in the form of compensation orders and/or civil penalties, as well as disqualification from managing corporations. In more serious cases, s184 will elevate breaches of sections 181 to 183 into criminal offences, potentially exposing directors to criminal prosecution with a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. Beyond the general duties, directors must also be mindful of their more specific obligations, such as the duty to prevent insolvent trading under section 588G, as well as ensuring that the company is attending to its tax affairs in a timely manner. Directors should be mindful that the Australian Taxation Office may issue a Director Penalty Notice (DPN) to company directors concerning unpaid company tax debts, namely Pay As You Go (PAYG) withholding, Superannuation Guarantee Charge (SGC), and Goods and Services Tax (GST) liabilities, where a company fails to meet those tax obligations. Upon valid service of a DPN, directors then have a limited period (usually 21 days) to take specific actions, such as paying the debt, appointing an administrator, or beginning the process of winding up the company, or else end up being personally liable for such debts. Some takeaways Directors play a central role in the governance and success of Australian companies. Their responsibilities are both legal and practical, requiring a proactive and informed approach. With the privilege of heading up a company comes many responsibilities, and directors will serve themselves well by: • Understanding their duties: Directors must be familiar with their common law duties and statutory duties under the Act and what those duties entail. • Staying informed: Directors should keep abreast of changes in the law and regulatory environment, particularly in emerging areas such as ESG issues, climate risk, and cyber security. • Exercising care and diligence: Directors are expected to make informed decisions by reviewing all relevant information, asking questions, and challenging management where appropriate. Regularly reviewing and updating risk management frameworks is essential to ensure the company is prepared for potential threats. • Maintaining good governance: Effective governance requires clear policies and procedures for managing conflicts of interest, maintaining confidentiality, and ensuring that board decisions are made transparently and in accordance with the company’s constitution and policies. • Documenting actions and decisions: Keeping comprehensive records of board meetings, decisions, and the rationale behind them is vital. This documentation demonstrates that directors have fulfilled their duties and provides protection if decisions are later scrutinised. • Seeking guidance when needed: In situations involving complex legal, financial, or operational risks, directors should not hesitate to seek independent professional advice. This helps ensure that decisions are well-informed and defensible. By taking these steps, directors can not only comply with their legal obligations but also contribute to the effective management and long-term sustainability of their organisations.
Dispute Resolution & Litigation
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and International Arbitration
International arbitration has long been valued for its flexibility, neutrality, and adaptability. In recent years, however, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced a new set of opportunities and challenges that are likely to reshape arbitral practice. Unlike earlier waves of technological change, AI has a particularly pervasive impact: it is capable of touching almost every stage of the arbitral lifecycle; from pre-dispute planning and arbitrator selection to evidentiary and document review, hearings, award drafting, and enforcement. AI in the Context of International Arbitration AI in arbitration may be grouped into several broad categories: • Language and speech technologies: real-time transcription, machine translation, speech analytics, and voice synthesis. • Document and data analysis: technology-assisted review (TAR), document clustering, contract analytics, and predictive search. • Reasoning and drafting support: summarisation, brief drafting, case law synthesis, and award-structuring tools. • Forensics and authenticity: detection of manipulated evidence, such as deepfakes, and analysis of metadata. • Decision support and analytics: outcome prediction, damages modelling, and arbitrator selection analytics. Each class of AI raises distinct questions regarding admissibility, transparency, fairness, and due process, all of which are central to the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of arbitral proceedings. Impact Across the Arbitral Lifecycle Pre-dispute Planning and Arbitrator Selection AI is increasingly shaping arbitration before disputes even arise. Contract drafters now anticipate AI-related risks by including specific provisions in arbitration clauses; for example, restrictions on uploading confidential information to public AI systems, or agreement on translation protocols.In arbitrator selection, AI-driven analytics tools reveal past decision-making patterns, areas of expertise, and potential conflicts. These tools broaden candidate pools and might assist in promoting diversity. However, there is also a danger of over-reliance on statistical patterns, creating feedback loops that favour “safe” or well-documented profiles, while sidelining lesser-known but equally qualified candidates. The key future challenge might be ensuring that arbitrator appointments remain a human decision, informed (but not dictated) by algorithms. Pleadings and Written Submissions AI tools assist counsel in drafting, citation-checking, and issue-spotting, leading to faster production of submissions. However, they also raise the very real risk of ‘hallucinations’, in which non-existent cases or inaccurate authorities are cited. If not carefully verified, such errors may undermine the credibility of submissions and result in disciplinary and costs sanctions.Tribunals may need to implement integrity protocols requiring parties to certify that authorities cited have been human-verified and that any AI-generated drafting has been carefully reviewed. In short, efficiency gains must not come at the expense of accuracy and reliability. Evidence and Document Production One of the most transformative effects of AI is in document review. TAR and clustering tools can reduce costs and streamline discovery, especially in multilingual disputes. But new problems may arise: • Privilege risks: Uploading confidential or privileged documents into public AI systems may inadvertently waive privilege or breach confidentiality obligations. • Authenticity concerns: The rise of deepfakes means tribunals must adopt more robust standards for authenticating video, audio, and photographic evidence. Best practices include adopting AI evidence protocols that require disclosure of the tool used, validation steps, and an auditable chain of custody. Tribunals should also anticipate the need for forensic experts to test the reliability of AI-processed evidence.Although AI can accelerate document production, it can also magnify risks of privilege breaches and fabricated evidence. Hearings AI is already embedded in arbitral hearings through transcription and machine translation. While these tools enhance accessibility, they introduce risks of misinterpretation that may unfairly affect witness credibility. More troubling is the possibility of covert AI assistance during testimony; for example, perhaps even the rather outlandish-sounding risk that a witness might receive real-time AI-generated prompts. Tribunals should consider addressing these risks in their procedural orders by: • approving specific transcription and translation tools, • prohibiting generative assistance during testimony, and • ensuring technological parity so that neither party has an unfair advantage. Going forward, procedural fairness is likely to require careful management of AI use during hearings. Deliberations and Award Drafting AI may certainly help arbitrators structure factual chronologies or verify consistency within an award. However, using AI in deliberations themselves raises two fundamental risks: • Breach of confidentiality: Uploading draft awards to external AI systems may compromise deliberation secrecy. • Improper delegation: If arbitrators rely on ‘opaque’ algorithms to decide on questions of facts or law, the award may be vulnerable to challenge under the New York Convention. The appropriate role for AI should therefore be limited to clerical or stylistic support, with substantive determinations reserved for the tribunal. Arbitrators must ensure that their awards are demonstrably the product of human reasoning. AI should assist, but never replace, the tribunal’s independent judgment. Post-Award Challenges and Enforcement AI use in arbitration could foreseeably feature prominently in set aside and enforcement proceedings. Parties may challenge awards on the grounds that undisclosed reliance on AI deprived them of due process (New York Convention, Article V(1)(b)) or that the award violates public policy (Art. V(2)(b)). Tribunals should mitigate such risks by keeping sealed records of any AI assistance used in drafting, limited to clerical tasks. This approach allows them to rebut speculative challenges without breaching deliberation secrecy. Regulatory and Ethical Considerations AI use runs the risk of introducing several cross-border tensions: • Data protection: Rules such as the EU’s GDPR, China’s PIPL, and Brazil’s LGPD complicate the use of AI platforms that transfer or store personal data abroad. • Confidentiality: Many consumer AI systems retain and train on user data, which conflicts with arbitration confidentiality obligations. • Export controls and sanctions: Some AI technologies are subject to restrictions, which may impact their use depending on the seat of arbitration. • Professional duties: Counsel must exercise competence and candour when using AI. Submitting unverified AI-generated content may breach professional ethics. Regulatory compliance and ethical oversight are essential in order to safeguard the legitimacy of arbitration. Costs, Time, and Environmental Impact AI can reduce costs by streamlining document review and shortening timelines, but it can also generate inefficiencies if inappropriately used. For example, hallucinated citations may necessitate costly corrections. From an environmental perspective, AI may reduce travel by enabling remote hearings, though large scale computation carries its own carbon footprint. It is likely that, in the future, tribunals will increasingly scrutinise whether parties’ AI-related expenditures are proportionate and recoverable as costs of arbitration. AI can undoubtedly make arbitration faster and cheaper if deployed responsibly, but careless use can equally have the opposite effect. Snapshot of Strategic Opportunities and Risks Opportunities: • More accurate multilingual proceedings through AI translation. • Faster and more efficient document review • Enhanced damages modelling and tribunal analytics. • Broader and more diverse arbitrator lists. Risks: • Hallucinated citations and unreliable outputs. • Privilege waivers from inappropriate AI use. • Undisclosed reliance on AI during testimony or deliberations. • Awards undermined by improper delegation to AI systems. Some Recommendations for Good Practice To integrate AI responsibly into international arbitration, tribunals and parties should adopt the following measures: • Include explicit AI provisions in Procedural Order No. 1, covering use, disclosure, authentication, and sanctions. • Require the use of enterprise-grade AI tools that do not train on confidential inputs. • Approve common translation and transcription platforms to ensure parity. • Mandate disclosure of method statements and validation for AI-processed evidence. • Establish forensic protocols for ‘deepfake’ detection. • Ensure that all substantive decisions remain with the tribunal. • Maintain audit trails of AI usage for accountability. • Allocate costs proportionately, rewarding efficient use and penalising misuse. • Safeguard deliberation secrecy by prohibiting external AI in award drafting. • Prepare enforcement-ready records to counter challenges under the New York Convention.
Dispute Resolution & Litigation
Ad hoc and Institutional Arbitration
Arbitration is an increasingly preferred alternative to traditional litigation, particularly in commercial and international disputes. For businesses engaged in cross-border transactions, especially within the Asia-Pacific region, choosing between institutional and ad hoc arbitration can significantly influence the efficiency, cost and enforceability of dispute resolution. This article outlines key differences and practical considerations to help parties make informed decisions. Institutional Arbitration Institutional arbitration is conducted under the rules of a recognized arbitral institution, such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) or the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA). These bodies offer a structured procedural framework and dedicated administrative support. The benefits of institutional arbitration include clearly defined rules that reduce procedural uncertainty, experienced panels of arbitrators and stronger international recognition of awards. Importantly, parties do not need to negotiate fees directly with arbitrators, as institutional rules often prescribe a fee schedule or allow the institution to manage these arrangements. The presence of a secretariat or case management team ensures that timelines are monitored and adhered to, minimizing procedural delays. Institutions also handle logistical and ancillary services such as transcription, interpretation, and hearing room bookings, relieving parties of the administrative burden. While institutional arbitration is often associated with higher administrative costs and reduced procedural flexibility, many institutions now offer streamlined rules and expedited processes to balance efficiency with oversight. Some institutions even extend their facilities, such as venues and financial administration services, to support ad hoc arbitrations, providing a hybrid option that blends autonomy with professional support. Ad hoc Arbitration Ad hoc arbitration does not involve an administering institution. Instead, the parties themselves agree on procedural rules, nominate arbitrators and manage the process independently. This approach offers greater flexibility and can be more cost-effective in the right circumstances. The appeal of ad hoc arbitration lies in its autonomy and adaptability. Parties can customise procedures to suit their commercial needs, potentially achieving faster outcomes with reduced expense. However, without institutional support, parties must arrange all aspects of the process, including arbitrator appointments, fee negotiations and ancillary services. This lack of infrastructure can lead to delays, especially when parties are uncooperative or disputes arise about procedure. Additionally, enforcement of awards may be more difficult if procedural irregularities affect the arbitration’s perceived legitimacy. Strategic Considerations for PartiesFor businesses operating in the Asia-Pacific, selecting the right arbitration model depends on factors such as dispute complexity, anticipated costs, international enforceability and the likelihood of party cooperation. Institutional arbitration is generally better suited to large-scale, cross-border disputes where predictability, enforceability and reputational assurance are important. The procedural structure and secretariat support offered by institutions can be critical in managing complex cases and ensuring compliance with deadlines. In contrast, ad hoc arbitration may be appropriate for smaller claims or domestic matters where parties are aligned on process and cost considerations and may still benefit from certain institutional services when needed. Ultimately, well-drafted arbitration clauses are essential. Legal advice at the contract negotiation stage can ensure that the chosen arbitration method aligns with a company’s broader commercial objectives and mitigates legal risk. As arbitration continues to expand across the region, businesses would do well to engage counsel experienced in both institutional and ad hoc frameworks to guide their approach. ConclusionWhile both institutional and ad hoc arbitration have their respective merits, the growing preference for institutional arbitration, reflected in a 2015 survey where 79 per cent of users opted for institutional mechanisms, underscores its practical advantages in the context of international commercial disputes. Institutions offer procedural certainty, administrative support, and enhanced credibility of awards, which are crucial when dealing with complex, cross-border matters. Additionally, the elimination of direct fee negotiations with arbitrators and the availability of ancillary services contribute to a smoother and more reliable process. Although institutional arbitration can be more costly and less flexible, its structured framework often proves more dependable, particularly where cooperation between parties is limited. Ultimately, the decision between institutional and ad hoc arbitration should be informed by the specific needs of the parties, the complexity of the dispute, and the importance of enforceability and procedural support.
Dispute Resolution & Litigation
How Can International Arbitration Be Made Cost Effective?
Making International Arbitration More Cost Effective International arbitration remains a preferred method for resolving cross-border disputes, especially in the Asia-Pacific. However, the process can be costly and protracted, often attracting criticism from commercial parties who seek timely and efficient outcomes. As arbitration continues to evolve in the region, cost effectiveness requires coordinated efforts from parties, arbitrators, institutions and legislators alike. Enhancing Efficiency Through Strategic PlanningMuch of the responsibility for controlling arbitration costs lies with the parties and their legal representatives. Early case assessment and a clear procedural strategy can significantly reduce inefficiencies. By developing a well-defined case theory from the outset, parties can better assess settlement options and avoid unnecessary procedural steps. Importantly, parties should give more thought to dispute resolution clauses before a dispute arises. Too often, these clauses are treated as boilerplate without due consideration of their strategic impact. This is the moment to agree to mechanisms that can streamline future proceedings, such as adopting the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which typically provide for more limited disclosure than common law approaches. Likewise, agreeing on the preparation of core document bundles and the use of admissions, even where these may be unfamiliar in civil law jurisdictions, can help narrow the factual issues in dispute and avoid unnecessary fact-finding. Choosing the right arbitrator is equally critical. Opting for a sole arbitrator, particularly one with availability and relevant industry experience, can eliminate the risk of scheduling conflicts and streamline decision-making. This is especially important in the Asia-Pacific region, where access to experienced arbitrators is competitive. Technology also plays a key role in reducing costs. Remote hearings now offer a practical alternative to in-person appearances, eliminating travel expenses and enabling greater flexibility in scheduling. Additionally, focusing on essential evidence and narrowing the scope of issues helps prevent the arbitration process from becoming unnecessarily prolonged. Arbitrators as Drivers of Procedural Efficiency Arbitrators play a pivotal role in setting the tone for an efficient process. Active case management, through clear timelines, procedural orders and firm expectations, helps ensure alignment throughout the arbitration. A key efficiency measure is for arbitrators to clarify the live issues early on, either by preparing their own list for party comment or asking the parties to jointly define them. This can dramatically reduce the time spent arguing peripheral matters. While arbitration is, to some degree, the parties' process, arbitrators should not be overly deferential. Effective case management may require firm intervention. Arbitrators should feel confident using procedural tools such as bifurcation, summary dismissal, or early partial awards, and they should not be deterred by concerns that being prescriptive might affect future appointments or trigger challenges to the award. The tribunal has a responsibility not only to the parties but also to the integrity of the arbitral process. Limiting the volume of submissions and requiring parties to justify the relevance of their evidence are further levers that tribunals can use to ensure the arbitration stays focused and proportionate. Arbitrators should also remain alert to opportunities for early settlement. In jurisdictions such as Singapore and Hong Kong, where mediation is well integrated, they can encourage or facilitate early resort to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. Institutional Support and Legislative Reform Arbitral institutions in the region, including the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), have taken steps to improve procedural efficiency. Many now offer expedited procedures that compress timeframes and reduce unnecessary steps, making them ideal for less complex or lower-value disputes. Institutions can go further by actively managing arbitrator availability, enforcing award delivery timelines, and promoting the use of ADR within the arbitration process. In countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where mediation is common, institutions could empower tribunals to stay proceedings to allow for meaningful settlement discussions. Legislation also plays a role. Clear statutory endorsement of summary procedures and expedited mechanisms can remove uncertainties about their enforceability and encourage broader adoption. Recent reforms in arbitration laws across the Asia-Pacific reflect a growing appetite for speed and economy in international arbitration. Practical Steps to Consider To maximise cost efficiency, parties and legal representatives should: • Carefully negotiate dispute resolution clauses during contract formation, considering procedural rules (e.g. IBA Rules) that limit scope and disclosure. • Include pre-arbitration settlement or ADR clauses in contracts. • Agree early on procedural matters such as timelines, core bundles and potential admissions. • Engage experienced arbitration counsel familiar with regional practices. • Limit evidence and witnesses to those strictly necessary. • Consider remote hearings wherever appropriate. Conclusion Cost effective arbitration is not achieved through isolated efforts. Instead, it requires a coordinated approach involving proactive parties, decisive arbitrators, supportive institutions and forward-looking legislation. By embracing efficient case management, agreeing procedural rules and issues upfront, leveraging technology and adopting expedited procedures, international arbitration can continue to serve as a reliable and commercially viable dispute resolution mechanism, particularly for businesses operating across the Asia-Pacific.
Dispute Resolution & Litigation
Security of Payment NSW - Know your right to receive progress payments for construction works and related goods and services
As a direct or indirect result of the COVID-19 pandemic and uncertainty in a global economy, various issues have been adversely impacting the construction industry, such as an increase in raw material price and supply chain disruption. Particularly, contractors and subcontractors are struggling with their cash flow due to their outstanding payments for the works carried out. Accordingly, security of payment legislation in each state has played a role in ensuring that anyone carrying out construction work, and supplying related goods and services under a construction contract gets paid promptly. This article discusses and explains your rights under the NSW Security of Payment Act, and each state has its own security of payment legislation, which may differ from each other in detail. Know Your Rights In New South Wales, the relevant security of payment legislation is the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (“SOPA”). The significance of the SOPA is that it grants contractors rights to receive progress payment even if there is no formal written contract or even if a contract says that you are only allowed to receive a payment at the end of works, i.e., after the completion of works. Fundamentally, the SOPA entitles a person or a company, who carried out construction work or supplied construction related goods and services, to receive progress payment. A progress payment means a partial payment for works as the project progresses even if the assigned works are not completed. Therefore, the progress payment facilitates cash flow for contractors and suppliers in the construction industry. Under SOPA, the following rights are granted to you: A right to receive a progress payment at least on a monthly basis; Maximum time limits to respond to claims for progress payments; Maximum payment terms; A right to suspend work in the event of non-payment; No ‘pay when paid’ clause: No need to wait until a contractor you worked for gets paid by a head contractor or principal; and Interest rates applicable on unpaid progress payment. Who is entitled to receive a progress payment? A person or company who, under a construction contract or any other construction arrangement, has undertaken to carry out construction work or supply construction related goods or services in New South Wales is eligible to receive a progress payment under the SOPA.[1] The “construction work” is broadly defined, including construction, alteration, repair, maintenance or demolition of buildings or structures forming part of land.[2] The “related goods and services” also include various related goods and services such as materials for construction or plant for use in construction work, labour service, design or engineering service.[3] While the SOPA is drafted to cover contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and service providers as broadly as possible, it should be noted that there are also exceptions such as those engaged in the extraction of oil, natural gas or minerals. Payment Claims The procedure for receiving a progress payment is triggered by a person entitled under the SOPA (Claimant) making a Payment Claim in writing to the other person who is responsible to make a payment under a construction contract (Respondent) In making a Payment Claim, Claimants must ensure that the following requirements are met:[4] 1) The construction work related to the progress payment must be identified; 2) The amount of the progress payment must be indicated; 3) A statement that a Payment Claim is made under this SOPA must be inserted; 4) A Payment Claim must be served on the Respondent within 12 months after the construction work was last carried out; and 5) A Payment Claim is only made one (1) time in a month on and from the last day of each month in which the construction work was carried out. How to respond to a Payment Claim? The Respondent is required to respond to the Payment Claim by providing a Payment Schedule to the Claimant within 10 business days after receipt of the Payment Claim. By failing to do so, the amount claimed in the Payment Claim is fixed and Respondents are liable for such amount on the due date. In issuing a Payment Schedule, Respondents also are required to comply with the following requirements:[5] 1) A Payment Claim related to a Payment Schedule must be identified; 2) The amount of the payment the Respondents propose to make must be indicated; and 3) If applicable, reasons why the amount in the Payment Schedule is less than that in the Payment Claim and reasons for withholding payment must be identified. Maximum payment terms One of the most important benefits available under the SOPA is that there are statutory deadlines for a progress payment to be made.[6] If the Respondents fail to pay the progress payment by the deadline in the diagram below, such amount is deemed due and payable, and interest on the unpaid amount is also payable at the prescribed rate. Your rights to suspend works A Claimant also has a right to suspend construction work or supply of related goods and services if a Respondent fails to pay the amount by the due date for payment as described above.[7] At least two (2) business days prior to the suspension, the Claimant must serve on the Respondent a Notice of Intention to Suspend Work in writing. As the date on which the Notice is given is not counted, the Claimant is eligible to suspend work on and from the fourth day of the Notice. Please see the above diagram. Once the work is suspended under SOPA, the Claimant is not liable for any loss or damage suffered by the Respondent as a result of such suspension. However, once the whole outstanding amount is paid, the Claimant must resume the work within three (3) business days from the payment date. Don’t wait until a head contractor gets paid The SOPA expressly prohibits and invalidates any clause in a construction contract that the payment of money is contingent on a milestone or an event in other contracts including a head contract.[8] A common example of these clauses is that a payment under a subcontract is made upon the payment by a principal under a head contract or upon the practical completion of a head contract. Such clauses are deemed unenforceable under the SOPA, and you have a right to claim the progress payment regardless of the operation of other contracts. Adjudication A person eligible under the SOPA also can start an adjudication process for unpaid or disputed progress payments. Adjudication is an informal and independent process which an issue or issues are determined by an independent adjudicator regarding the payment claims. The adjudicator’s determination can be enforced as if it is a judgment rendered in a Court. However, the Claimant must file an adjudication application in writing by the following deadlines:[9] Type Deadline When: 1) Respondent issues a Payment Schedule, and 2) the amount in a Payment Schedule is less than the amount in a Payment Claim Within 10 business days after a Payment Schedule is issued When: 1) Respondent issues a Payment Schedule; and 2) Respondent fails to pay the amount in the Payment Schedule by the due date Within 20 business days after a Payment Schedule is issued When 1) Respondent fails to issue a Payment Schedule; 2) Respondent fails to pay the amount in a Payment Claim by the due date; 3) Claimant serves written notice of intention to apply for adjudication of the payment claim on Respondent within 20 business days from the due date; and 4) Respondent has been given an opportunity to provide a Payment Schedule within 5 business days after receiving notice of intention to apply for adjudication of the payment claim Within 10 business days after the end of the 5 business days for Respondent to provide a Payment Schedule after receiving notice of intention to apply for adjudication of the payment claim Detailed procedures, requirements for adjudication and enforcing the adjudicator’s determination will be discussed in future articles. Payment Withholding A subcontractor who has made an adjudication application for a progress payment is also entitled to request a principal contractor to retain money owed to a head contractor to cover the claimed amount.[10] This is called a ‘payment withholding request’. Upon receipt of the payment withholding request, the principal must retain the amount of money to which the payment claim relates.[11] When a successful outcome is given in the adjudication process, a subcontractor is able to recover the withheld money from the principal through the procedures set out in the Contractors Debts Act 1997 (NSW). How can we assist If you are involved in construction work in New South Wales, the SOPA entitles you to claim the progress payment and have protections accordingly. However, your rights under SOPA may vary depending on your satisfactory fulfilment of requirements and on whether you took proper actions in a timely manner. Although the SOPA sets out a statutory regime for prompt payment for construction work, there are still a number of disputes arising from unpaid progress payments in a construction contract, which ends up with unsatisfactory outcomes for unpaid contractors and suppliers. If you are unsure what rights you have in your construction payment issues, H & H Lawyers will be happy to review your case to check whether it might fall within a case protected under the Security of Payment Act or other relevant laws. We can further assist in finding a way to enforce your rights. Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. The information may have been obtained from external sources and we do not guarantee the accuracy or currency of the information at the date of publication or in the future. Please obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action on matters discussed in this publication. [1] SOPA ss4 and 8. [2] SOPA s5 [3] SOPA s5 [4] SOPA s13 [5] SOPA s14 [6] SOPA s11 [7] SOPA s27 [8] SOPA s12 [9] SOPA s17 [10] SOPA s26A [11] SOPA s26B
Dispute Resolution & Litigation
Security for costs in the context of the foreign judgment registration in Australia: KR & C Co Ltd v Soon Ok Hwang [2021] NSWSC 551
On 18 May 2021, the Supreme Court of New South Wales in KR & C Co Ltd v Soon Ok Hwang [2021] NSWSC 551 held that a security for costs application brought by a judgment debtor in its Notice of Motion to set aside a foreign judgment registered in Australia is to be dismissed with costs. This case provides a useful authority where there is limited case law dealing with security for costs applications in the context of the foreign judgment registrations in Australia. H & H Lawyers successfully opposed the security for costs application in these proceedings. Background In this case, the plaintiff, a foreign company, was a judgment creditor in a judgment held in the Republic of Korea against the defendant who was a judgment debtor. Based on that judgment, the plaintiff filed a Summons seeking an order for registration of the foreign judgment under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) (FJA). The foreign judgment from Korea was ordered to be registered, and the defendant applied to set it aside. A case concerning an application seeking to set aside a registered foreign judgment will be discussed separately in a further case note. Following the setting aside application, the defendant, by another Notice of Motion, sought security for costs against the plaintiff, which is the subject of this case note. The defendant by seeking the security for costs relied upon the prospects of success on the application to set aside the registration of the Korean judgment. The plaintiff opposed the security for costs on, amongst others, the following bases: 1. While security for costs under r 42.21 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) is limited to applications made by a defendant in the proceeding, r 53.4 is intended to preclude a judgment debtor from making an application for security; 2. There is no reason to believe that the plaintiff would not pay any costs order if ordered; and 3. The defendant’s prospects of success are minimal. The Court dismissed the defendant’s security for costs application by upholding the plaintiff’s 2nd and 3rd arguments above. The Supreme Court’s Reasoning The first question before the Court was the interpretation of UCPR r 53.4. That rule relevantly provides that: “For the purposes of proceedings under the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 of the Commonwealth, the Supreme Court may make an order under rule 42.21 otherwise than on the application of the judgment debtor.” In the previous hearing, on a motion for extension of time to apply to set aside the registration of foreign judgment before Campbell J in KR & C Co Ltd v Soon Ok Hwang [2021] NSWSC 164, one of the defendant’s contentions concerning r 53.4 was that it allows the Court to make a security for costs order of its own motion. However, Campbell J, referring to Richie’s commentary, stated to the effect that either the judgment debtor or creditor may make an application for security under r 53.4. The Court in the present proceedings disagreed with Richie’s commentary, and accepted and cited obiter dicta of Adams J in Raffaele Viscardi SRL v Qualify Centre Food Services Pty Limited (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 2055 (“Viscardi”), which stated that: “Though awkwardly drafted, this (being r 53.4) appears to prevent a judgment debtor, though a defendant, from making an application under r 42.21.” Nevertheless, the Court did not determine this issue as it was not necessary for the Court to decide that in the circumstance where the judgment creditor was found to be not impecunious. During the proceedings, it was not contested that the plaintiff is a company registered in Korea, ordinarily resident outside Australia, and has no assets in Australia. Therefore, the threshold required in r 42.2(1)(a) of UCPR was enlivened without difficulty. The plaintiff is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a statutory authority in Korea that has a similar function to that of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA). There was no evidence establishing that the plaintiff, despite it being a foreign entity, is impecunious or will be unable to pay any adverse costs if ordered. Further, given the substantial reciprocity of treatment of judgments between Australia and Korea, the defendant can enforce the costs order in Korea, if ordered. As to the prospect of success on the application to set aside the registration of the Korean judgment, the defendant relied on public policy grounds under s 7(2)(a)(ix) of the FJA for reasons that: 1. There was a time interval between the foreign judgment and the registration in Australia; 2. The defendant did not receive notice of the proceedings in Korea; and 3. The quantum of the registered judgment is excessive. The Court found that the defendant’s public policy arguments were weak. The detailed arguments and analysis of the above contentions will be discussed in a further case note as that is the gist of the further proceedings, however, in summary, it was resolved that the prospect of success in the defendant’s contentions was modest at best. Implications This case is one of the limited authorities that have decided the security for costs application in the context of foreign judgment registrations in Australia. There are three key takeaways to be learned from this case. Firstly, the mere fact that a party is not an ordinary resident and does not possess assets in Australia does not necessarily mean that that party would be unable to pay the costs. There must be something more than evidence simply showing that a party is a foreign entity, particularly in circumstances where that foreign entity is a government-owned company and where an original court and Australian courts mutually recognise judgments of each other. Secondly, when relying on the prospect of success ground in a security for costs application, a party applying for security is required to prove more than a moderate possibility of success in their arguments. In the present case, the Court found that the prospect in the defendant’s arguments was moderate but did not accept that that was sufficient. Lastly and most importantly, it is a persuasive ground to argue that, while it is obiter dicta in this case and also in the Viscardi case, UCPR r 53.4 operates to preclude a judgment debtor from making an application for security. In New South Wales, the registration of a foreign judgment is determined ex parte (i.e. without the other party’s attendance and notice), and it is always the case that a judgment debtor applies for setting aside after the registration is completed. As such, a judgment creditor is relevantly in the position of a respondent/defendant who needs to respond to a motion brought by a judgment debtor. On that premise, it is unreasonable to view that UCPR r 53.4 is interpreted in a way that a moving party seeking a court order, i.e. a judgment debtor, is also allowed to seek security for costs that may stop a judgment creditor from responding to a judgment debtor’s motion