Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 SEPTEMBER 2010

Superintendents Wearing Two Hats Risk Abuse Of Power

Despite the fact that it is now well entrenched in common law that a superintendent must act honestly, fairly and impartially in carrying out its duties, the role of the superintendent remains a complex one, and is often prone to conflict of interest. This is particularly the case when the superintendent is engaged by the principal in a quasi extension of the owner's team. The recent case of Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Limited vs Lindsay Bennelong Developments Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 777 provides an

AustraliaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Alyson Eather
Alyson Eather

Facts

Lindsay Bennelong Developments Pty Ltd (the principal) entered into a contract with Kell and Rigby Holdings Pty Ltd (the contractor) for the construction of a mixed residential and commercial development (the contract). The principal also acted as superintendent under the contract.

The works were to be completed in three stages. At the time of the dispute, stage 1 had been completed and stages 2 and 3 were under construction. Two years into construction, the parties entered into an advance payment deed (the deed), by which the principal agreed to advance to the contractor part of the balance of the original contract sum to the value of $2 million (the advance payments). The deed provided for two advance payment bonds, each in the form of an unconditional bank guarantee in the amount of $1 million (the guarantees).The contract provided that, with respect to the advance payments, if they had not been repaid on or before the date of the issue of the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from