4 Council CONNECT May 2018 Commercial Disputes Time spent ensuring the contract reflects Council’s appetite for risk and narrows the scope for dispute often, as in this case, provides a smoother and easier path to resolution. Tale No. 2 The Bartier Perry Building and Construction team was recently engaged by a subcontractor to help recover outstanding rental fees for equipment supplied to a construction contractor. Facts An equipment hire contractor entered into a contract with a construction contractor in which the hire contractor undertook to supply specialised hydraulic lifting equip- ment for a high-rise commercial construction project. Issue Partway through the contract, the builder alleged that the equipment was defective and stopped making the monthly hire payments. Yet the builder appeared to continue using the equipment. At the end of the project the equipment was demobilised and returned to the hire contractor, as required by the contract. However, payment of the outstanding rental invoices were not made. Action taken Even though the hire contractor had issued monthly invoices to the builder for the hire fee, it had not issued a progress claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment (SOP) legislation. After the return of the equipment, the hire contractor issued a progress claim under the SOP Act on the next ‘reference date’. The SOP progress claim, which included the previously issued invoices, was served on the builder by fax, a permitted method under the construction contract. The hire contractor expected to receive a payment schedule from the builder rejecting the progress claim and had determined to make an application for adjudication of the dispute under the SOP Act.