In Wärtsilä Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 003 736 892) v Primero Group Ltd (ACN 139 964 045) & Ors  SASC 162, a contractor has failed to recoup $15M because it tried to submit completion reports via Dropbox link. This is adds to the line of authorities which caution reliance on cloud-based technologies for issuing documents, whether under contract or statute.
Primero Group Ltd (Primero) contracted with Wärtsilä Australia Pty Ltd (Wärtsilä) to perform civil, mechanical and electrical works and supply tanks for the construction of the Barker Inlet power station on Torrens Island in South Australia.
The contract provided the following requirements for ‘SW Completion’:
‘(2) the tests, inspections and communications required by this subcontract (including Schedule 3) to have been carried out before SW Completion have been carried out, passed and the results of the tests, inspections and commissioning provided to [Wärtsilä]
(8) the completed quality assurance documentation … is available for inspection by [Wärtsilä] at the Facility Land’ (emphasis added)
Primero emailed Wärtsilä on 28 February 2020 a Dropbox link to the documents. Yet Wärtsilä was unable to access the documents via the link until 2 March 2020.
On 2 March 2020, Primero served a payment claim under s 13 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA) in the amount of $85,751,118 (excluding GST). On 10 March 2020, Wärtsilä responded with a payment schedule which scheduled “nil” but also stated that the payment claim was invalid as it was not supported by a reference date.
Primero proceeded to adjudication and the adjudicator determined Primero’s payment claim was valid, awarding $15,269,674.30 (excluding GST). Key to the adjudicator’s determination was that the payment claim was supported by a reference date of 28 February 2020. Wärtsilä made an application to the Supreme Court for an order quashing the adjudication determination.
The parties agreed that if SW Completion under the contract had not occurred on 28 February 2020 the adjudicator’s determination was invalid.
Primero argued that it had provided the documents and made them available for inspection by sending the email.
Primero also contended that the Electronic Communications Act 2000 (SA) (ECA) permitted the contractual obligation for the provision of the documents to be satisfied by electronic communication. Under s 8 of the ECA, the time of receipt of an electronic communication was when it is ‘capable of being retrieved by the addressee’.
Sending a Dropbox link to the documents was not sufficient for SW Completion. On 28 February 2020, Primero had emailed the link to Wärtsilä, but Wärtsilä was unable to completely download the documents.
Accordingly, the adjudication determination was quashed because it was not made with reference to a valid payment claim. The $15M award to Primero was nullified.
Stanley J held:
- in relation to SW Completion item (2), ‘the provision of the hyperlink merely provided a means by which Wärtsilä was permitted to download the documents stored in the cloud. Until it did so, those documents had not been provided.’
- in relation to SW Completion item (8), ‘the hyperlink did not amount to making the documents available for inspection… because until all the documents were downloaded, they were not capable of being inspected at the facility land.’
His Honour stated:
‘a common sense and businesslike construction of the contractual requirements that the documents be provided and are available for inspection necessarily requires that the documents were capable of being downloaded on 28 February 2020. I find they were not.’
Stanley J applied a Queensland case Conveyor & General Engineering v Basetec Services & Anor  1 Qd R 265 (Conveyor) and a Federal Court case Clarke v Australian Computer Society Inc  FCA 2175 (Clarke), which went to the point that a document could not itself be considered to be “left at” or “sent” to an intended recipient if an email containing a link to the document was sent to that recipient. To summarise, it is only the email itself which is sent or transmitted, not the document housed on the cloud server.
The ECA did not apply to the communication to solve the problem for Primero because:
‘Both s 8 and s 10 prescribe circumstances that condition the operation of those provisions. Those circumstances include: first, that at the time the information is given by means of electronic communication, it was reasonable to expect that the information would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and second, that the person to whom the information is required to be given consents to the information being given by means of an electronic communication.’
His Honour held that Conveyor and Clarke stood as authority for the proposition that the provision of the documents by hyperlink did not constitute an “electronic communication” for the purposes for the ECA.
This point is highly relevant to because the relevant legislation governing electronic transmissions and communications are modelled off uniform Commonwealth legislation (Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth)) and have largely consistent provisions.
Take Home Tips
It is important to consider closely whether the terms of your contract allow you to submit completion documents (or other documents) via a Dropbox link. If the contract uses words like “provide”, “send”, “make available”, etc, it is unlikely that merely providing a link to those documents will satisfy the obligation unless and until the documents are actually downloaded or accessed in full by the intended recipient. This can be difficult to prove.
It is unlikely that you will be able to fall back on the relevant electronic communications or transactions legislation in your jurisdiction because the provision of the link will not be considered an “electronic communication” of the document itself. Strict compliance with the contract and statute (particularly in the realm of security of payment) is always required.
 At .
 At .
 At .
 At .
 At .
 At  to .
 At .