Clarence Street Pty Ltd v Isis Projects Pty Ltd

(2005) 64 NSWLR 448; [2005] NSWCA 391

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Construction Law
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Payment claims
4. › Validity of payment claim
5. › Identification of construction work
6. › Whether payment claim must identify construction work to which progress payment relates
7. › Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), s 13(2)(a)
1. Construction Law
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Payment claims
4. › Statutory debt
5. › Failure to provide payment schedule
6. › Whether recipient who fails to provide payment schedule may raise contractual defences
7. › Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), ss 14(4), 15(4)(b)(ii)
1. Construction Law
2. › Security of payment legislation
3. › Progress payments
4. › Due date
5. › Reference date
6. › Whether payment claim must meet contractual requirements for payment to be due
7. › Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW), ss 8, 11
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construction of remedial legislation
3. › Beneficial construction
4. › Security of payment legislation
5. › Whether strict or liberal approach to formal requirements of payment claims

Quick Take

A payment claim under s 13 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) need not satisfy the contractual requirements for a progress claim; the statutory scheme creates free-standing rights. The identification requirement in s 13(2)(a) is to be approached in a non-technical manner, and its function is to enable the recipient to understand the claim and know the case it has to meet. Where a recipient fails to provide a payment schedule, s 15(4)(b)(ii) precludes it from raising defences based on contractual preconditions such as the Superintendent's certification.