Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 OCTOBER 2015

Saipem Australia Pty Ltd v GLNG Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] QSC 173: Performance security

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Contributor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth is Australia’s leading independent law firm. We provide exceptional legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Corrs Chambers Westgarth

S.67J of the QBCC Act qualifies the use of a security provision, rather than the source of the entitlement to security.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

KEYWORDS: CALLING ON SECURITY

KEY TAKEAWAY

Section 67J of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act qualifies the use of a security provision rather than providing the source of a party's entitlement to security.

Whether a performance guarantee acts to allocate risk has a decisive impact on the balance of convenience when seeking an interlocutory injunction.

Background

In 2011, Operations Pty Ltd (as agent for Santos GLNG Pty Ltd and others) (GLNG) engaged Saipem Australia Pty Ltd (Saipem) to construct a gas pipeline. Saipem was required to provide two bank guarantees (Performance Security).

  • Under clause 5.5(a), GLNG could call on the Performance Security to recover any loss resulting from Saipem's default under the contract or any debt due.

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