The High Court's Tesseract decision has significant implications for risk/liability allocation and dispute resolution on construction projects. Owen explains why buyers and suppliers of construction and engineering services should revisit their approach to contracting for proportionate liability and resolving disputes by arbitration.

Standards Australia has just released for public consultation its proposed update to AS 4000, but the update is very minimalist – to ensure no change to the contract’s 1997 risk allocation.

A recent Victorian supreme court decision has sent shudders down the spines of lawyers who draft contracts that expressly allow their clients to do things in their “absolute discretion”.

This article explains how long-term, multi-party alliance contracts can be used to improve value to the project owner beyond any single project.

This article provides a suggested framework for structuring and negotiating clauses that avoid or cap your liability. It builds on an earlier article that explains why some businesses need to do so, and the key legal rules around doing so.

This article explains why businesses need to cap and avoid liability for uncommercial risks, and the key legal rules around doing so.

In a landmark decision, two businesses have emerged victorious in their compensation claim against the NSW government’s transport agency for the disruption to their businesses caused by the construction of the Sydney light rail project.

The NSW Supreme Court ruled that the extended period of disruption constituted an unlawful “nuisance”, going beyond what was “reasonable”.

This verdict has far-reaching implications for project owners and contractors involved in construction activities affecting neighbouring businesses.

If Standards Australia wants to arrest its declining share of the construction contracting suite market, it should update AS4000 and the other contracts in its suite to provide equivalent or better functionality than NEC4.

Transport infrastructure costs more to deliver in Sydney than it should. Committee for Sydney has released a report on why this is so, and what can be done to reduce the costs. The report reflects Infralegal’s views on how we should buy infrastructure.

This article is an edited version of the presentation that Owen Hayford delivered at the 11th Annual Major Projects Conference in Darwin on 19 October 2022.

March also saw the John Alexander OAM chaired House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities table in Federal Parliament its report titled Government procurement: a sovereign security imperative.

What’s interesting about this report, and what differentiates it from similar reports, is its focus on the community’s growing concern regarding Australia’s sovereign security.

In this opinion piece, Owen shares his views on what’s really needed to turn Infrastructure Australia’s procurement reform roadmap into improved outcomes

An online panel discussion that lamented the Australian construction industry’s current approach to risk allocation and procurement and asked whether it was time to punt the lawyers.

Calls for reforms to Australia’s civil engineering sector have become louder over recent weeks…

This post makes the case for a risk allocation reset on our transport infrastructure projects. It does so by:

• outlining our current approach to risk allocation on transport projects and the problems it creates;

• explaining why it’s not just a problem for contractors, but is also a problem for governments and other project owners; and

• offering some views on what the risk allocation reset should look like.

The contracting market for major civil construction works on Australia’s east coast has become fraught – for project owners, major contractors, and the rest of the supply chain.

A common response by project owners to Australia’s fraught construction market has been to break major projects into a number of separate contract packages that can be separately tendered. Smaller contract packages, or packages involving fewer disparate activities, enable smaller or more specialised contractors to compete in their own right rather than as part of a joint venture, thereby expanding the pool of potential bidders. It also reduces the level of risk borne by any one contractor. But what are the downsides?

Our founder, Owen Hayford, was delighted to have been given the opportunity to deliver the legal side bar at today’s IPA Webinar. This is what he had to say about the opportunity that post COVID infrastructure spending provides to not only reinvigorate our economy and put people back into jobs, but also shift the dial on construction sector productivity.

This paper considers how PPPs provide opportunities for equity investors and managing contractors to manage risks that construction contractors are no longer prepared to take, and at the same time reduce the overall risk-adjusted project cost for government and taxpayers.

The delivery partner model is well suited to major infrastructure projects where the client wishes to achieve time and cost outcomes that can't be achieved via traditional procurement models and is prepared to embrace and manage integration risks, with the assistance of capable delivery partners.