The Court refused summary judgment on a SOP Act statutory debt claim, holding that the defendant had a reasonably arguable defence based on the amended s 8(2) of the SOP Act, which precludes entitlement to a progress payment where construction work is done in contravention of s 92 of the Home Building Act (failure to hold required insurance). The Court also held it was reasonably arguable that an informal text message constituted a valid payment schedule under s 14 where it identified the payment claim by context (only one invoice existed), indicated the basis for the dispute (an oral fixed-price agreement), and implicitly indicated a scheduled amount of $39,000. The question of whether the amended s 8(2) definitively bars SOP Act claims for uninsured residential building work was left for determination at trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members.