The Court held that a supporting statement under s 13(9) of the BCISOP Act need not list all subcontractors to qualify as a valid supporting statement; the requirement is that the document be substantially in the prescribed form and contain the required declaration, not that its contents be accurate or complete. Accuracy is addressed by the separate offence provision in s 13(8). In obiter, Ball J expressed the view that even if no valid supporting statement accompanied a payment claim, the payment claim would not be rendered invalid, as s 13(7) provides its own remedy (a criminal penalty) and the legislature did not implicitly intend invalidity as an additional consequence — though his Honour did not formally depart from the contrary line of authority established by McDougall J in Kitchen Xchange and followed by Meagher JA.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.