Evidence Beats Paperwork and Causation Beats Narrative: Rimfire Energy v BSF

The Federal Court’s decision in Rimfire Energy Pty Ltd v BSF Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 384 shows with unusual clarity where extension of time claims now succeed or fail.

Not on sympathy. Not on volume. And not on how difficult a project became. They turn on whether contractual entitlement is actually proved. 

Although the case arose out of delays to connection works under two Power Purchase Agreements, it is not really a renewables case at all. It is a decision about notice, causation, and contractual discipline. The Owners may well have faced genuine project difficulties, but the Court never needed to reach the merits of those difficulties. The claims failed at the gateway. 

The contractual gateway 

Clause 5 of the PPAs set out the mechanism for extensions of time. The structure was familiar but strict. 

An Owner would only be entitled to an extension if three things occurred. First, an Extension Event had to arise. Second, the Owner had to demonstrate that it was delayed as a result of that event. Third, within 10 business days after the full effects of the Extension Event were determined, the Owner had to submit a written claim that complied with the detailed content requirements in clause 5.1(c). 

These were not procedural formalities. They were conditions of entitlement. As the Court emphasised, clause 5.1(b) uses the language of entitlement. The Owner will be entitled to an extension only if those conditions are satisfied  

Why causation mattered 

The Owners relied on a Connection Works Delay as the relevant Extension Event. That definition was narrow and deliberate. It only captured delays caused by PWC to the extent that the delay was not caused by the EPC contractor or the Owner. 

That exclusion did the real work in the case. 

At paragraphs [71] to [74], the Court explained that in complex infrastructure projects involving multiple parties and interdependent tasks, it is not enough to point to a third party delay. The notice must explain why and how that delay was not attributable to the Owner or its contractor. Those matters are ordinarily within the Owner’s knowledge and control, and the contract placed the burden of addressing them squarely on the Owner  

The notices did not do that. They referred to PWC delays, attached programs, and asserted revised completion dates, but they did not explain the extent to which the delay was not caused by the EPC contractor or the Owner. That omission alone rendered the notices invalid. 

Why programs and correspondence did not save the claim 

The Owners relied heavily on surrounding emails, schedules, and background correspondence to support their position. The Court rejected that approach. 

At paragraph [74], the Court made clear that merely referring to PWC delays did not satisfy the contractual requirement to particularise causation. In projects involving parallel and iterative activities, there is a clear need to identify precisely why a delay by one party is not ultimately attributable to another. The notice itself must do that work  

A compliant extension of time claim cannot be assembled by inference from a body of paperwork. The contract required a compliant notice. 

Timing was fatal as well 

Even if the content defects could be overlooked, the notices still failed on timing. 

Clause 5 required the claim to be submitted within 10 business days after the full effects of the Extension Event were determined. The Owners bore the burden of proving compliance. No evidence was led as to when that determination occurred, and the notices themselves were silent on the point. 

At paragraphs [76] and [77], the Court confirmed that this was not a technicality. Timely notice was a deliberate and important part of the contractual mechanism. Without proof of compliance, there was no entitlement to an extension, regardless of the underlying factual position  

The blunt reality 

During closing submissions, the Court observed that a party could have the strongest factual case imaginable and still fail if it did not comply with the notice requirements. That observation reflects the judgment as a whole. The Court was not weighing competing delay narratives. It was enforcing the bargain the parties had struck. 

Once the notices failed, the underlying facts became irrelevant. 

What this means in practice 

The lesson from Rimfire is not that delay claims are harder. It is that they are more disciplined. 

Notice clauses are conditions of entitlement. Causation must be articulated, not assumed. And entitlement must be proved within the four corners of the contract. 

Programs, emails, and extensive background material may explain what happened on a project. They do not, of themselves, create entitlement. 

Closing thought 

This decision is a reminder of how courts now approach extension of time claims. 

Evidence beats paperwork. Causation beats narrative. 

---

At Accura Consulting, our team of experts work with clients to create a tailored solution to problems. If you have an issue and want expert support, get in touch.

---

Back to News and Insights

Related News and
Insights from Accura