A defence that a payment claim is invalid under s 17(5) of the BCIP Act (duplicate claim for the same reference date) is not barred by s 19(4)(b)(ii) even where the respondent failed to serve a payment schedule, because it is not a defence 'in relation to matters arising under the construction contract'. Section 19(4)(b)(ii) aims to prevent respondents from raising defences about whether moneys are owing under the contract terms or performance, not defences about the formal validity of the payment claim itself. There is no implied requirement of good faith for a valid payment claim under s 17 of the BCIP Act. A claimant who changes the basis of its claims from the contractual procedure to the statutory regime without notice may face an arguable case of misleading and deceptive conduct under s 52 TPA. Whether estoppel can operate against the BCIP Act regime remains an open question.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 30 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 30 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.