We can help you buy or sell a residential or commercial property anywhere in Australia. Leasing contract services included.
ForumLaw provides legal services and contract work for any type of business transaction from business registration to succession matters.
We'll help make your project a success, from setting up & revising contracts and agreements to tracking sales & leases in multiple-strata unit projects online!
Choose a package that suits your needs. We then maintain constant legal watch of your business.
Take control of your assets today. Contact ForumLaw to arrange a new Will or review any existing arragements in place.
Stay in touch with how the law affects you! Subscribe to our
The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA) is designed to safeguard the rights of builders and subcontractors [the Builder] to be paid for stages of work completed during a job to maintain cash-flow on the job. Under the SOPA if a Payment Claim is made in the required form, the Recipient of that Payment Claim is required to provide the Builder with a Payment Schedule in response to the Payment Claim within 10 business days unless stipulated otherwise under the Contract.
The NSW Supreme Court has recently re-visited this regime in the case of State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Limited  NSWSC 528. In that case the Court reinforced the fact that liability for the full amount of the Payment Claim is extremely difficult to avoid, even in circumstances where a subsequent Payment Claim for the same amount has been made. In this case State Asphalt had essentially issued 2 Payment Claims against Leighton which were identical. Leighton had failed to respond to the first within time, and had provided a Payment Schedule to the second Payment Claim.
The terms of the Payment Schedule essentially reduced the claim made by State Asphalt to $nil through various cross claims. Armed with this knowledge and in the absence of a response [Payment Schedule] to the first Payment Claim State Asphalt filed an application for summary judgment in respect of the first Payment Claim. Leighton attempted to have the judgment overturned on the following grounds:
The outcome of the case is a clear statement by the Supreme Court of the strict interpretation of the SOPA and the perils of failing to respond to a Payment Claim. According to the law as it stands the liability for a Payment Claim is final, and the existence of a subsequent and identical claim should not be treated as a “second chance” to respond to the initial claim.