The Court held that a payment claim not accompanied by a supporting statement as required by s 13(7) of the Security of Payment Act is not validly served, and therefore does not count as a prior claim for the purposes of the s 13(5) prohibition against serving more than one payment claim per reference date. Accordingly, a subsequent compliant payment claim for the same works and reference date is not invalidated by the earlier defective claim. The Court also held that where a building contract provides for progress claims on the 22nd day of each month for works done to that date without requiring work in the preceding period, each such date constitutes a separate reference date under s 8(2)(a), and a claim made shortly after such a date relates to that reference date even where no new work was done in the intervening period. The Court left open whether a payment claim served in breach of s 13(8) (knowingly false supporting statement) would cease to be a valid payment claim for s 17(1) purposes, as the falsity was not established on the facts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.