In the recent case of One Pro Baulkham Hills Pty Ltd v Ming Tian Real Property Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1043, the NSW Supreme Court considered whether conditions precedent to a notice to proceed with construction works had been met. Under the construction contract the contractor was not allowed to commence works until the principal had secured finance, was entitled to draw on the finance and had issued a notice to proceed to the contractor. Ultimately, the Court held that conditions precedent were not satisfied as they were deemed to be “sequential”. This meant that the notice to proceed could not be issued until the preceding conditions had been satisfied. Consequently, as the Principal issued a notice to proceed at a time when the opportunity to draw on finance was not available, the Court held that the notice to proceed was not effective and the contractor was not obliged to carry out works under the contract.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: