Mackay Chapman November 2025 Building and Construction Update

Welcome back to Mackay Chapman’s monthly building and construction update.

This month, we explore the Victorian Government’s proposed overhaul of Security of Payments laws, ongoing concerns around procedural fairness in DBI eligibility reviews, and a recent ASIC prosecution involving alleged director misconduct in the construction sector.

As always, our aim is to keep builders, contractors and industry participants informed about the issues shaping risk, compliance and decision-making across Victoria.

‍

Security of Payments overhaul: Fairer Payments Bill released

Security of Payments remains one of the most heavily contested areas of construction law, and the Victorian Government has now taken a significant step toward reform with the introduction of the Building Legislation Amendment (Fairer Payments on Job Sites and Other Matters) Bill 2025.

The Bill draws from models operating interstate and is intended to create stronger protections for contractors, subcontractors and others operating in the payment chain.

Key proposed changes include:

• Allowing adjudicators, courts and other decision-makers to declare unfair contract terms unenforceable.
  
  
• Removing the current “excluded amounts” regime to streamline and accelerate dispute resolution.
   
• Introducing notice requirements before guarantees or other payment securities can be called.
  
  
• Setting maximum limits on payment claim periods and the time allowed for payment.
  
  
• Establishing a new Christmas “blackout period”, pausing statutory processes during the holiday shutdown.

As with any major legislative change, several questions remain. How will the provisions operate in practice? What gaps or unintended consequences might emerge once the system is tested? 

These are issues the sector will be watching closely. Further guidance is expected as the Bill progresses.

‍

DBI eligibility: procedural fairness concerns persist

For builders seeking DBI eligibility or increases to their permitted limits, the early stages of the process remain one of the most challenging aspects of regulatory engagement in Victoria.

Despite the significant impact eligibility decisions have on a builder’s commercial viability, new applicants often face limited guidance, unclear expectations and minimal support at the outset.

Common issues our team continues to observe include:

• Uncertainty around which financial, structural or project documents should be provided.
  
  
• Limited visibility over issues that may need to be addressed before submitting an application.
  
  
• A lack of clarity around assessment timeframes, review pathways and appeal options.

Experienced builders are familiar with the informal “rules of thumb” that tend to make the process smoother. However, new entrants often encounter avoidable delays or adverse decisions simply because expectations were not communicated up front.

Our view is that earlier and clearer communication from regulators would materially improve outcomes. 

In the meantime, applicants should seek proactive advice before lodging, particularly if they have any structural, financial or historical matters that may affect assessment.

‍

ASIC charges Victorian construction director with alleged misconduct

A recent ASIC enforcement action has highlighted ongoing scrutiny of governance and financial conduct within the construction industry.

A Melbourne-based director, Recep Cevis of Airport West, appeared before the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court facing allegations relating to breaches of director duties and the provision of false or misleading information to ASIC.

Mr Cevis was the sole director of two companies: Cevis Holding Pty Ltd and RC Engineering Consultancy Pty Ltd. Both are now in liquidation. 

ASIC alleges that shortly before the companies were wound up, he caused each entity to enter into finance arrangements for high-value Mercedes-Benz vehicles, despite their inability to service the associated debt in light of imminent insolvency.

The regulator also alleges that a statutory report lodged in relation to Cevis Holding failed to disclose one of the financed vehicles, rendering the document false or misleading.

The charges include two counts under section 184(1) of the Corporations Act (max penalty: 15 years’ imprisonment) and one count under section 1308(2) (max penalty: five years’ imprisonment).

‍

The contents of this article and any linked articles do not constitute legal advice, are not intended to be a substitute for legal advice, and should not be relied upon as such. They are designed and intended as general information in summary form, current at publication, for general informational purposes only. You should seek legal or other professional advice concerning any particular legal matters you or your organisation may have.

‍