Catchwords:
CONSTRUCTION — contractor engaged to engineer, procure and construct power station in remote WA for $78 million — small site nestled between two existing power stations operated by Alinta and BHP — principal says it will move existing underground services before the contractor starts, to avoid problems with neighbours — extensive delay until underground services are removed, ultimately with the assistance of the contractor — contractor serves extension of time (EOT) claim on principal but omits to copy superintendent — contractor required to undertake work on Alinta’s existing power station — principal obliged to, but fails to, perform electrical isolations for the contractor to undertake works — contractor asked to perform work near live cables — refuses — delay while isolations done — COVID-19 border restrictions and quarantine interrupt interstate fly-in fly-out (FIFO) workers getting to remote site — local labour hired but less productive, causing delay — complex commissioning and testing process for new power station — principal required to, but fails to, make electricity network available during this process, causing delay — when was practical completion achieved — is contractor entitled to EOTs and delay costs — yes. SUPERINTENDENTS — parties agree that superintendent’s determinations may be challenged in Court — how Court to approach its task at [12]-[18] — principal to ensure superintendent “acts honestly, fairly and reasonably and arrives at reasonable determinations” — role of superintendent at [19]-[21] — superintendent “overwhelmed” and makes no determination —replaced — second superintendent privately indicates to principal that inclined to issue certificate of practical completion — superintendent immediately replaced — private communications between superintendent and one contracting party undermines role of superintendent — removing a superintendent to stop them giving a determination that you do not want effectively destroys the role. EXTENSIONS OF TIME — time impacted analysis at [407]-[408] — programs — who ‘owns’ the float at [130]-[134] — whether change of logic in subsequent program may indicate baseline program should not be used — yes, at [832] — whether it matters that the work was ultimately done differently — no, at [834] — whether EOT should include loss of ‘activity float’ — no, at [524]-[526]. DELAY COSTS — “reasonable additional costs and expenses directly incurred … as a result of that delay” includes usual margin — contractor not obliged to provide goods and services without gain, absent clear words at [536]-[538] — contractor entitled to overheads and profit margin, at [544]-[547] — whether delay costs include lost days of ‘activity float’ — no, at [528]. VARIATIONS — was an email a variation order — consideration at [289]-[291]. CONTRACTS — proper construction, at [84]-[85] — resolving inconsistencies, at [399] — whether removal of underground services formed part of contractor’s scope of work — no — whether contractor’s acceptance of Site Conditions included the site as later excavated by the principal to remove underground services — no — whether principal obliged to backfill and compact the land disturbed by removal of such services to Site Conditions as at the date of the contract — yes. IMPLIED TERM — duty to cooperate — principles at [270] — principal had “sole discretion” to give a notice to proceed — issue of notice fixed Date for Practical Completion and commencement of contractual provisions for liquidated damages — principal obliged to give contractor access to site “to perform the Work” within 10 business days of the notice — duty to cooperate obliged principal to be satisfied that it would be in such a position when issuing the notice. ‘PREVENTION PRINCIPLE’ — implied obligation to cooperate — whether contract excluded prevention principle — case law review at [259], [867]-[871] — Growthbuilt Pty Ltd v Modern Touch Marble & Granite Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 290 considered — prevention principle not excluded. WAIVER — principles at [761] — impact of ‘no waiver’ clause at [762] — case law review at [763]-[766] — principal relies on contractor’s failure to provide EOT claim to superintendent in time as basis to reject claim entirely — process for determination of EOTs not followed — principal later content for third superintendent to determine claim substantively — principal chooses between inconsistent rights — principal waives reliance on failure to comply with conditions precedent. AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW — whether representation made, principles at [63] — implications of entire agreement and no reliance clauses at [73] — representation as to future matter — whether misleading or deceptive, at [882]-[883] — had proper basis when made. ESTOPPEL — whether representation made, principles at [64] — principal represented that it would remove underground services prior to contractor arriving on site — whether principal should be estopped from denying entitlement to EOT — elements of estoppel at [294] — principal did not represent that it would not rely on contractual regime in respect of EOTs — estoppel not made out.