Andrew is the Co-Founder and Principal of Batch Mewing Lawyers, advising clients nationally across the construction, infrastructure, energy, and development sectors on the delivery of complex projects and the resolution of high-value disputes.
He has extensive experience acting for contractors, principals, developers, and consultants throughout all stages of the project lifecycle – from procurement strategy and contract negotiation through to project delivery, security of payment, and litigation and dispute resolution.
Having worked both in private practice and in-house with leading construction and engineering organisations, Andrew brings a commercially focused and pragmatic approach to complex legal and project challenges. He is known for providing clear, strategic advice that aligns with the commercial realities of project delivery.
Andrew regularly advises on major projects across a broad range of procurement models and has particular expertise in construction risk, project delivery, and security of payment legislation throughout Australia.
In recent years, his expertise has been recognised by peer-reviewed publications, including Best Lawyers Australia and Doyles Guide.
Outside of practice, Andrew is an accomplished sportsman who has represented Australia in swimming. He brings the same discipline, focus, and competitive mindset developed through his swimming career to the way he supports clients and leads his team.
Project highlights
Kangaroo Point Green Bridge
Advising the client on all stages of the contract framework for the new bridge. Assisted with the tendering, negotiation and administrative phase of the project and worked closely with the project team to provide legal assistance and advice.
Carmichael Rail Network
Acted for the head contractor on the $500M Carmichael Rail Network, including providing regular contract management and strategic advice throughout the entire project.
University of Queensland Synthetic Oval & Sports Hub
Acted for the plaintiff in Supreme Court proceedings against a lead consultant architect and sub-consultant engineer.
Large scale builds involve complex commercial contracts. The scope documents are inevitably convoluted and painful to work through. Clarifications and alternative tenders sometimes just confuse matters more. Today we discuss one such case. While the Court dealt with a number of topics here, we’re focusing on just two: how to interpret a specification, and time bars for delay claims.
In the construction industry, technological and electronic communication has become an integral part of project delivery. But while electronic service documents brings efficiency and speed, it can come with risks and uncertainties not at play in the context of personal or postal service.
Who bears the risk of remote and unforeseen events in a construction contract? As far as possible, that is for the parties to decide before entering into an agreement. Beyond that, the answer is murky.
