Transport for NSW has reportedly asked the Supreme Court to strike down Spanish construction firm Acciona’s $1.1 billion claim over being allegedly misled in the early stages of the contract to build the Sydney CBD & South East Light Rail project.
According to a report in The Australian on Wednesday, the state transport authority this week filed an order looking to strike down Acciona’s case before proceedings are scheduled to continue this Friday.
The state’s application is said to be based on the claim Acciona has not provided enough evidence that it was the victim of “misleading and deceptive conduct” by the NSW Government.
Acciona is seeking roughly $1.1 billion in the Supreme Court, over additional costs it says it has incurred, or will incur, during construction of the new light rail line in Sydney.
The contractor claims it received a document from electricity network operator Ausgrid, just hours after initial contracts were signed, detailing the volume of underground electricity infrastructure that would need to be moved or adjusted during construction.
Acciona says the volume of work required to move the electricity infrastructure was well in excess of what it was led to believe during the procurement process.
NSW transport minister Andrew Constance has publicly slammed the contractor for its claims, saying the state is currently an “angry customer,” and accusing Acciona of instructing its workers to operate on a “go-slow” on the project.
The state’s attempt to have the Supreme Court action struck down comes the same week Fairfax reported Acciona won over $30 million in payments from the ALTRAC consortium – the consortium hired to build the project, of which Acciona is a subcontractor – via an action made under the NSW Security of Payments Act (SOPA).
Acciona had made a $37 million claim under the act, related to construction “progress payments” it says it was owed for the project.
According to an AFR report, Acciona chief financial officer Carlos Arilla said the smaller claim victory was “very encouraging” for the contractor looking towards the larger claim against the government.