18.06.2018

Ebert Construction Limited v Sanson [2017] NZCA 239

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Ebert Construction Limited (Ebert) which challenged the ability of the liquidators of a developer company to claw back payments made by a financier under a direct payment agreement.  The Court held that the payments made by the financier were under a direct obligation to a builder, and were therefore not payments by the insolvent company, and were therefore not subject to the insolvent transactions regime.  The form of direct payment agreements or tripartite agreements will be important, particularly in voidable transaction cases.

Background

In October 2005 Takapuna Procurement Limited (TPL) entered into a construction contract with Ebert to construct the 134-unit Shoalhaven Apartments complex at Takapuna for approximately $32,500,000.  TPL arranged finance with BOS International (Australia) Limited (BOSI) through a Senior Facility Agreement and Strategic Nominees Limited (Strategic) through a Junior Facility Agreement.

The direct agreement

Ebert, BOSI and Strategic entered into a “direct agreement” in relation to the project.

Direct agreements generally provide for a contractor’s progress payments to be paid directly by the financier.  They typically provide a financier with “step in rights” if a developer defaults on their obligations.  The direct agreement in this case included the following relevant features:

  1. BOSI was required to pay Ebert progress payments due under the construction contract provided a) BOSI had received an approval payment certificate for the amount to be paid and b) Ebert was not in default of its obligations under the construction contract.
  2. TPL gave an irrevocable authority for these payments to be made by BOSI direct to Ebert.
  3. BOSI and Strategic could only terminate TPL’s finance facilities if they first paid duly approved progress payments to Ebert.
  4. Neither BOSI nor Strategic had any liability or obligation to Ebert other than as provided in the direct agreement. TPL remained “primarily liable” for all obligations under the construction contract.  However, BOSI had the right to step in and complete the project if TPL defaulted on its obligations under the construction contract.
  5. A default by TPL under its loan facility agreement did not discharge BOSI from its obligations to Ebert under the direct agreement. This provision was described as unusual in direct agreements.

Completion of the project and insolvency

The apartments were completed in April 2008.  TPL defaulted on the loan facility with BOSI in July 2008.  In November 2008, TPL and Ebert agreed that the final amount owed to Ebert was $1,603.891.90, which would be paid by way of two cash payments and settlement of the apartment.  TPL issued drawdown notices, and BOSI made payments in accordance with those notices.  An arrangement for the sale of one of the apartments with Ebert as nominated purchaser was also entered into.

TPL was put into liquidation within a few days of these transactions on the application of the Inland Revenue Department.

In the High Court, Associate Judge Doogue held that the two cash payments and the transfer of the apartment were voidable transactions and ordered repayment of $1,603,891.90 plus interest.  Ebert appealed.

A direct liability to pay

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.  The key reason was its finding that BOSI had an obligation, as a principal debtor under the direct agreement, to pay Ebert if certain conditions were met.  As a result, the payments were not transactions “by” TPL (as required under s 292 Companies Act 1993), nor did they allow Ebert to receive more than it would otherwise have received in the litigation (as Ebert always had a right to sue BOSI directly).

The Court noted also that the funds paid by BOSI to Ebert would not have been available to any other creditor, and accordingly did not form part of the general resources of the company.  While that is true, it should be noted that the payments made by BOSI to Ebert had the effect of increasing the level of secured debt, and thus reducing the general resources of the company that were available to unsecured creditors.

It is also important to note that the features of the direct agreement which led the Court to its conclusion are not common to all direct agreements.  The Court observed that it is unusual for the financier to have an obligation to pay a contractor in circumstances where the principal has defaulted on the loan agreement.  If a direct agreement provides that direct payments are at the discretion of the financier, the payments may still be vulnerable to claw back in the event of insolvency.

Implications

Contractors presented with a direct agreement need to bear in mind the risk that payments made by a financier could be clawed back by a liquidator in the event of the principal’s insolvency.  To prevent this, the financier must have an obligation (not a discretion) under the direct agreement to pay the contractor that is independent of the direction and will of the principal.


 

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Hi-ho, hi-ho, back to work we go?
In Auckland, we’re excited to be moving to Alert Level 3, if only so we can take a break from cooking every single meal! 
21.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
M&A Pricing Mechanics: Completion Accounts vs Locked Box
A critical period in the timeline of any M&A share transaction is the period between signing the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement and completion.
Climate Change and the Construction Industry: Counting down to a national strategy
The Government is getting closer to the publication of a national strategy for responding to climate change.
21.09.2021 Posted in Climate Change & Construction
Formation of Contract: Black Sea Commodities Ltd v Lermarc Agromond Pte Ltd
The English High Court decision in Black Sea Commodities Ltd v Lermarc Agromond Pte Ltd [2021] EWHC 287 highlights the importance of parties to commodities contracts expressly including an arbitration clause in the contract. This is particularly when the contract is formed by email or instant messaging negotiations.
20.09.2021 Posted in Litigation & Dispute Resolution
August 2021 Lockdown – what financial support is available?
The Government is offering various support schemes to help employees and businesses cope with the 2021 COVID-19 Lockdown.  Given the differing eligibility requirements it is easy to become overwhelmed.
20.09.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
Clarity on Liquidated Damages following Termination
The United Kingdom Supreme Court in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 has clarified the operation of liquidated damages clauses in the event of termination.  The dec...
Is your will in draft form?  High Court refuses to exercise its discretionary power to validate a draft will notwithstanding beneficiaries’ consent
The High Court’s recent decision in Re: An application to validate the will of Olive Ruby Piper [2021] NZHC 534 serves as a valuable reminder to make sure that your estate planning documents are...
16.09.2021 Posted in Family & Trust Wills Estates
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
-->