Coggins, J (2011) From disparity to harmonisation of construction industry payment legislation in Australia: A proposal for a dual process of adjudication based upon size of progress payment claim. Construction Economics and Building, 11(2), pp. 34-59. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
Since the introduction of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act into New South Wales in 1999, construction industry payment legislation has progressively been enacted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis throughout Australia. Of the eight Australian Acts, two distinct legislative models can be discerned - what have been termed the 'East Coast' and 'West Coast' models. This article compares the two models with respect to their payment systems and adjudication schemes, procedural justice afforded, incursion upon freedom of contract, uptake rates and efficiency. From this comparison, the strengths and weaknesses of the two models are identified. Finally, a dual process of adjudication based on progress payment claim size is proposed for a harmonised model, developed from previous proposals put forward by other authors, which aims to combine the strengths of the two existing models.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract; payment; adjudication; claim |
| Index terms: | jurisdiction, Australia, disparity, security of payment, construction industry, New South Wales, payment legislation, proposal, justice, adjudication, efficiency |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, Geography, warranties, performance management, legal systems, project planning, industry analysis, social justice |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Contract Administration, Quality Management, Ethics, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here