Leveling the Playing Field: How CICA’s New Template is Changing the Crane Industry
At Level Playing Field Lawyers, we’re proud to announce a landmark collaboration with the Crane Industry
CLIENT
Tiling Contractor (“Subcontractor”)
OTHER PARTY
Head contractor (“Head Contractor”)
CONTRACT
Install paving on pedestals based on a square metre rate
PAYMENT CLAIM
$31,530.37 including GST
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Not provided
ADJUDICATION AWARD
$31,530.37 including GST, penalty interest and adjudication costs
The tiling contractor entered into a contract to install paving on pedestals.
After the contract was signed, the Head Contractor altered the construction method from the standard pedestal paving system to a modified pedestal steel joist paving system. The Subcontractor expressed concerns about the modified pedestal steel joist paving system including:
• The area is non-trafficable for 2 days
• Once the pavers are fixed, it is difficult to remove if access to drains are required
• The process being extremely time consuming
• Quality cannot be guaranteed, especially the uniformity of pavers installed.
The Head Contractor signed a letter stating that he would assume the risk of defects resulting from the modified system.
After the installation of the pavers, numerous trades walked over the pavers due to concerns about the schedule.
Significant defects resulted. Tiling was not uniform, the tiles were lipping, gaps in tiling were not even etc.
The Head Contractor stated that it was backcharging the Subcontractor $38,559.40 including GST and therefore would not pay the final claim.
LPF made an adjudication application on behalf of the Subcontractor.
In the Adjudicator’s determination, he stated that the Head Contractor could not lodge an adjudication response as it had not provided a valid payment schedule within time. The Adjudicator accepted LPF’s submissions about work completed and defects.
After the Head Contractor paid the adjudication award to the Subcontractor, the Head Contractor initiated a VCAT case alleging defects.
The Subcontractor paid $15,000.00 to settle the case.
CONCLUSION
As a Subcontractor, if a method of construction will result in defects, it is advisable to refuse to proceed using the proposed construction method. A Subcontractor is assumed to be an expert in their field.
RELATED POSTS
At Level Playing Field Lawyers, we’re proud to announce a landmark collaboration with the Crane Industry
If you’re a subcontractor working under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (the Act), it’s crucial to understand how to
Consider the effect of the recent decision in Plunkett v Portier Pacific [2024] VCAT 204. Facts The Respondent in this matter applied to have the
Case Summary: McDonald v MAK Constructions and Building Services Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 63 Background: In early 2022, a residential building contract between Ms. McDonald
Dispute about Dry Hire Agreement We acted for a crane company (Owner) that was engaged by another crane company (Hirer) under a dry hire arrangement.
KIND WORDS FROM OUR CLIENTS
17 & 18, 207 Buckley St
Essendon VIC 3040
© Copyright 2025 Level Playing Field Lawyers. All Rights Reserved.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.