A payment claim under the ACT Security of Payment Act need only reasonably identify the construction work such that the basis of the claim is reasonably comprehensible to the recipient; it need not separately particularise work by individual site where the contract provides for work across multiple sites. Where a payment claim is sent to an email address sharing the same domain name as known addresses of the recipient, and the recipient fails to adduce evidence that the address is not valid, a Jones v Dunkel inference may be drawn supporting service. A respondent who cannot identify work from a payment claim should respond with a 'can't identify' payment schedule rather than ignoring the claim.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.