The Court held that a supporting statement under s 13(7) of the Security of Payment Act must relate to a payment claim already in existence at the time the declaration is made; a declaration dated earlier than the payment claim it purports to support renders the payment claim non-compliant and fails to invoke the Act's machinery, making any resulting adjudication determination void. The Court also held that actual receipt of a notice of acceptance of appointment by the respondent constitutes effective notification under s 21(3)(a) even if delivered via an intermediary not expressly authorised by s 31, and followed McDougall J's position that a determination made outside the s 21(3) time limit is not automatically void but triggers the adjudicator's disentitlement to fees under s 29(4).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.